User login
Patients with agoraphobia are showing strength, resilience during the pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a wave of general and mental health-related problems, such as stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation. Those problems have been exacerbated in patients with mental illness who are already struggling to cope with personal problems.
One might expect those with agoraphobia to be adversely affected by the pandemic and experience increased feelings of anxiety. It appears that people with agoraphobia might especially feel uncertain of other people’s actions during this time. Some might perceive being alone and cut off from help, and those feelings might make them more susceptible to panic attacks.
In my (R.W.C.) clinical experience, however, my patients with agoraphobia are actually functioning better than usual throughout this challenging course.
Personalizing treatment
Agoraphobia is a type of anxiety disorder that often develops after a panic attack and involves an intense fear of a place or situation. In my 40 years of clinical experience, I have treated about 300 patients with agoraphobia, and all of them exhibit the following three symptoms: depression (from losses in life), dependency (dependent on other people to help with activities of daily living), and panic attacks (an abrupt surge of intense fear or intense discomfort that may cause a person to avoid crowded areas or other public spaces outside of the home).
To manage these clients, I individualize treatment and use different strategies for different patients to help them cope with their agoraphobia. I normally treat my agoraphobic patients with a combination of medication and therapy. I most often use a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and my SSRI drug of choice is usually paroxetine (Paxil). Or, instead of an SSRI, I sometimes prescribe a tricyclic antidepressant, often Tofranil (imipramine). As an adjunct, I might prescribe a benzodiazepine, Xanax (alprazolam), p.r.n. My prescription decision is based on a patient’s side effect profile, medical history, and close blood relatives’ responses to those medications.
The therapy I use is behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding. Desensitization is a coping technique that helps the patient overcome triggers associated with the panic attacks and anxiety. In normal times, I use both in vitro (imaginary) and in vivo (real situation) desensitization. However, during the pandemic, I can use only in vitro desensitization, since I am treating patients through phone calls and telemedicine rather than in-person visits.
I also teach my patients with agoraphobia relaxation techniques to work through their fears and anxieties, and thus to reduce feelings of stress and anxiety. The patients can practice these learned techniques on their own in an effort to reduce panic and avoidance behaviors, and create a relaxation response.
Treating the key symptoms
As stated earlier, all of my agoraphobic patients exhibit the following three symptoms: depression, dependency, and panic attacks.
- Depression – My agoraphobia patients are less depressed during the pandemic and are not feeling intense losses as they did prepandemic.
- Dependency – During the pandemic, everyone has been interdependent upon other people in their households. Therefore, the patients’ support systems are more readily available, and the patients can help others as much as others help them in their own households or “havens of safety.”
- Panic attacks – As depression has declined, panic attacks have also declined, since they are interrelated.
Understanding why functioning might be better
I attribute the improved functioning I am seeing to five factors:
1. Some people with agoraphobia may find that physical distancing provides relief, because it discourages situations that may trigger fear.
2. Staying in their homes can make people with agoraphobia feel like part of mainstream America, rather than outside the norm. Also, they become egosyntonic, and sense both acceptance and comfort in their homes.
3. Isolating, staying home, and avoidance behavior is now applauded and has become the norm for the entire population. Thus, people with agoraphobia might feel heightened self-esteem.
4. Since many people have been staying in for the most part, people with agoraphobia do not feel they are missing out by staying in. As a result, they are experiencing less depression.
5. Now, I treat my patients through the use of telemedicine or by phone, and thus, patients are more relaxed and calm because they do not have to leave their homes and travel to my office. Thus, patients can avoid this dreaded anxiety trigger.
It might have been logical to assume that patients living with agoraphobia would be negatively affected by the pandemic, and experience increased feelings of anxiety and/or panic attacks – since the pandemic forced those with the illness to face fearful situations from which they cannot escape.
Fortunately, my agoraphobia patients have fared very well. They have remained on their prescribed medications and have adapted well to phone and telemedicine therapy. In fact, the adjustment of my patients with agoraphobia to the stringent mitigation measures surpassed the adjustment of my other patients. These patients with agoraphobia have proved to be a strong and resilient group in the face of extreme stress.
Dr. Cohen, who is married to Nancy S. Cohen, is board-certified in psychiatry and has had a private practice in Philadelphia for more than 35 years. His areas of specialty include agoraphobia, sports psychiatry, depression, and substance abuse. In addition, Dr. Cohen is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Cohen holds an MBA from Temple University in Philadelphia with a focus on health care administration. Previously, Ms. Cohen was an associate administrator at Hahnemann University Hospital and an executive at the Health Services Council, both in Philadelphia. She currently writes biographical summaries of notable 18th- and 19th-century women. Ms. Cohen has no disclosures.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a wave of general and mental health-related problems, such as stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation. Those problems have been exacerbated in patients with mental illness who are already struggling to cope with personal problems.
One might expect those with agoraphobia to be adversely affected by the pandemic and experience increased feelings of anxiety. It appears that people with agoraphobia might especially feel uncertain of other people’s actions during this time. Some might perceive being alone and cut off from help, and those feelings might make them more susceptible to panic attacks.
In my (R.W.C.) clinical experience, however, my patients with agoraphobia are actually functioning better than usual throughout this challenging course.
Personalizing treatment
Agoraphobia is a type of anxiety disorder that often develops after a panic attack and involves an intense fear of a place or situation. In my 40 years of clinical experience, I have treated about 300 patients with agoraphobia, and all of them exhibit the following three symptoms: depression (from losses in life), dependency (dependent on other people to help with activities of daily living), and panic attacks (an abrupt surge of intense fear or intense discomfort that may cause a person to avoid crowded areas or other public spaces outside of the home).
To manage these clients, I individualize treatment and use different strategies for different patients to help them cope with their agoraphobia. I normally treat my agoraphobic patients with a combination of medication and therapy. I most often use a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and my SSRI drug of choice is usually paroxetine (Paxil). Or, instead of an SSRI, I sometimes prescribe a tricyclic antidepressant, often Tofranil (imipramine). As an adjunct, I might prescribe a benzodiazepine, Xanax (alprazolam), p.r.n. My prescription decision is based on a patient’s side effect profile, medical history, and close blood relatives’ responses to those medications.
The therapy I use is behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding. Desensitization is a coping technique that helps the patient overcome triggers associated with the panic attacks and anxiety. In normal times, I use both in vitro (imaginary) and in vivo (real situation) desensitization. However, during the pandemic, I can use only in vitro desensitization, since I am treating patients through phone calls and telemedicine rather than in-person visits.
I also teach my patients with agoraphobia relaxation techniques to work through their fears and anxieties, and thus to reduce feelings of stress and anxiety. The patients can practice these learned techniques on their own in an effort to reduce panic and avoidance behaviors, and create a relaxation response.
Treating the key symptoms
As stated earlier, all of my agoraphobic patients exhibit the following three symptoms: depression, dependency, and panic attacks.
- Depression – My agoraphobia patients are less depressed during the pandemic and are not feeling intense losses as they did prepandemic.
- Dependency – During the pandemic, everyone has been interdependent upon other people in their households. Therefore, the patients’ support systems are more readily available, and the patients can help others as much as others help them in their own households or “havens of safety.”
- Panic attacks – As depression has declined, panic attacks have also declined, since they are interrelated.
Understanding why functioning might be better
I attribute the improved functioning I am seeing to five factors:
1. Some people with agoraphobia may find that physical distancing provides relief, because it discourages situations that may trigger fear.
2. Staying in their homes can make people with agoraphobia feel like part of mainstream America, rather than outside the norm. Also, they become egosyntonic, and sense both acceptance and comfort in their homes.
3. Isolating, staying home, and avoidance behavior is now applauded and has become the norm for the entire population. Thus, people with agoraphobia might feel heightened self-esteem.
4. Since many people have been staying in for the most part, people with agoraphobia do not feel they are missing out by staying in. As a result, they are experiencing less depression.
5. Now, I treat my patients through the use of telemedicine or by phone, and thus, patients are more relaxed and calm because they do not have to leave their homes and travel to my office. Thus, patients can avoid this dreaded anxiety trigger.
It might have been logical to assume that patients living with agoraphobia would be negatively affected by the pandemic, and experience increased feelings of anxiety and/or panic attacks – since the pandemic forced those with the illness to face fearful situations from which they cannot escape.
Fortunately, my agoraphobia patients have fared very well. They have remained on their prescribed medications and have adapted well to phone and telemedicine therapy. In fact, the adjustment of my patients with agoraphobia to the stringent mitigation measures surpassed the adjustment of my other patients. These patients with agoraphobia have proved to be a strong and resilient group in the face of extreme stress.
Dr. Cohen, who is married to Nancy S. Cohen, is board-certified in psychiatry and has had a private practice in Philadelphia for more than 35 years. His areas of specialty include agoraphobia, sports psychiatry, depression, and substance abuse. In addition, Dr. Cohen is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Cohen holds an MBA from Temple University in Philadelphia with a focus on health care administration. Previously, Ms. Cohen was an associate administrator at Hahnemann University Hospital and an executive at the Health Services Council, both in Philadelphia. She currently writes biographical summaries of notable 18th- and 19th-century women. Ms. Cohen has no disclosures.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a wave of general and mental health-related problems, such as stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation. Those problems have been exacerbated in patients with mental illness who are already struggling to cope with personal problems.
One might expect those with agoraphobia to be adversely affected by the pandemic and experience increased feelings of anxiety. It appears that people with agoraphobia might especially feel uncertain of other people’s actions during this time. Some might perceive being alone and cut off from help, and those feelings might make them more susceptible to panic attacks.
In my (R.W.C.) clinical experience, however, my patients with agoraphobia are actually functioning better than usual throughout this challenging course.
Personalizing treatment
Agoraphobia is a type of anxiety disorder that often develops after a panic attack and involves an intense fear of a place or situation. In my 40 years of clinical experience, I have treated about 300 patients with agoraphobia, and all of them exhibit the following three symptoms: depression (from losses in life), dependency (dependent on other people to help with activities of daily living), and panic attacks (an abrupt surge of intense fear or intense discomfort that may cause a person to avoid crowded areas or other public spaces outside of the home).
To manage these clients, I individualize treatment and use different strategies for different patients to help them cope with their agoraphobia. I normally treat my agoraphobic patients with a combination of medication and therapy. I most often use a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and my SSRI drug of choice is usually paroxetine (Paxil). Or, instead of an SSRI, I sometimes prescribe a tricyclic antidepressant, often Tofranil (imipramine). As an adjunct, I might prescribe a benzodiazepine, Xanax (alprazolam), p.r.n. My prescription decision is based on a patient’s side effect profile, medical history, and close blood relatives’ responses to those medications.
The therapy I use is behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding. Desensitization is a coping technique that helps the patient overcome triggers associated with the panic attacks and anxiety. In normal times, I use both in vitro (imaginary) and in vivo (real situation) desensitization. However, during the pandemic, I can use only in vitro desensitization, since I am treating patients through phone calls and telemedicine rather than in-person visits.
I also teach my patients with agoraphobia relaxation techniques to work through their fears and anxieties, and thus to reduce feelings of stress and anxiety. The patients can practice these learned techniques on their own in an effort to reduce panic and avoidance behaviors, and create a relaxation response.
Treating the key symptoms
As stated earlier, all of my agoraphobic patients exhibit the following three symptoms: depression, dependency, and panic attacks.
- Depression – My agoraphobia patients are less depressed during the pandemic and are not feeling intense losses as they did prepandemic.
- Dependency – During the pandemic, everyone has been interdependent upon other people in their households. Therefore, the patients’ support systems are more readily available, and the patients can help others as much as others help them in their own households or “havens of safety.”
- Panic attacks – As depression has declined, panic attacks have also declined, since they are interrelated.
Understanding why functioning might be better
I attribute the improved functioning I am seeing to five factors:
1. Some people with agoraphobia may find that physical distancing provides relief, because it discourages situations that may trigger fear.
2. Staying in their homes can make people with agoraphobia feel like part of mainstream America, rather than outside the norm. Also, they become egosyntonic, and sense both acceptance and comfort in their homes.
3. Isolating, staying home, and avoidance behavior is now applauded and has become the norm for the entire population. Thus, people with agoraphobia might feel heightened self-esteem.
4. Since many people have been staying in for the most part, people with agoraphobia do not feel they are missing out by staying in. As a result, they are experiencing less depression.
5. Now, I treat my patients through the use of telemedicine or by phone, and thus, patients are more relaxed and calm because they do not have to leave their homes and travel to my office. Thus, patients can avoid this dreaded anxiety trigger.
It might have been logical to assume that patients living with agoraphobia would be negatively affected by the pandemic, and experience increased feelings of anxiety and/or panic attacks – since the pandemic forced those with the illness to face fearful situations from which they cannot escape.
Fortunately, my agoraphobia patients have fared very well. They have remained on their prescribed medications and have adapted well to phone and telemedicine therapy. In fact, the adjustment of my patients with agoraphobia to the stringent mitigation measures surpassed the adjustment of my other patients. These patients with agoraphobia have proved to be a strong and resilient group in the face of extreme stress.
Dr. Cohen, who is married to Nancy S. Cohen, is board-certified in psychiatry and has had a private practice in Philadelphia for more than 35 years. His areas of specialty include agoraphobia, sports psychiatry, depression, and substance abuse. In addition, Dr. Cohen is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Cohen holds an MBA from Temple University in Philadelphia with a focus on health care administration. Previously, Ms. Cohen was an associate administrator at Hahnemann University Hospital and an executive at the Health Services Council, both in Philadelphia. She currently writes biographical summaries of notable 18th- and 19th-century women. Ms. Cohen has no disclosures.
National poll shows ‘concerning’ impact of COVID on Americans’ mental health
Concern and anxiety around COVID-19 remains high among Americans, with more people reporting mental health effects from the pandemic this year than last, and parents concerned about the mental health of their children, results of a new poll by the American Psychiatric Association show. Although the overall level of anxiety has decreased from last year’s APA poll, “the degree to which anxiety still reigns is concerning,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, told this news organization.
The results of the latest poll were presented at the American Psychiatric Association 2021 annual meeting and based on an online survey conducted March 26 to April 5 among a sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 years or older.
Serious mental health hit
In the new poll, about 4 in 10 Americans (41%) report they are more anxious than last year, down from just over 60%.
Young adults aged 18-29 years (49%) and Hispanic/Latinos (50%) are more likely to report being more anxious now than a year ago. Those 65 or older (30%) are less apt to say they feel more anxious than last year.
The latest poll also shows that Americans are more anxious about family and loved ones getting COVID-19 (64%) than about catching the virus themselves (49%).
Concern about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19 has increased since last year’s poll (conducted September 2020), rising from 56% then to 64% now. Hispanic/Latinx individuals (73%) and African American/Black individuals (76%) are more anxious about COVID-19 than White people (59%).
In the new poll, 43% of adults report the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health, up from 37% in 2020. Younger adults are more apt than older adults to report serious mental health effects.
Slightly fewer Americans report the pandemic is affecting their day-to-day life now as compared to a year ago, in ways such as problems sleeping (19% down from 22%), difficulty concentrating (18% down from 20%), and fighting more with loved ones (16% down from 17%).
The percentage of adults consuming more alcohol or other substances/drugs than normal increased slightly since last year (14%-17%). Additionally, 33% of adults (40% of women) report gaining weight during the pandemic.
Call to action
More than half of adults (53%) with children report they are concerned about the mental state of their children and almost half (48%) report the pandemic has caused mental health problems for one or more of their children, including minor problems for 29% and major problems for 19%.
More than a quarter (26%) of parents have sought professional mental health help for their children because of the pandemic.
; 23% received help from a primary care professional, 18% from a psychiatrist, 15% from a psychologist, 13% from a therapist, 10% from a social worker, and 10% from a school counselor or school psychologist.
More than 1 in 5 parents reported difficulty scheduling appointments for their child with a mental health professional.
“This poll shows that, even as vaccines become more widespread, Americans are still worried about the mental state of their children,” Dr. Geller said in a news release.
“This is a call to action for policymakers, who need to remember that, in our COVID-19 recovery, there’s no health without mental health,” he added.
Just over three-quarters (76%) of those surveyed say they have been or intend to get vaccinated; 22% say they don’t intend to get vaccinated; and 2% didn’t know.
For those who do not intend to get vaccinated, the primary concern (53%) is about side effects of the vaccine. Other reasons for not getting vaccinated include believing the vaccine is not effective (31%), believing the makers of the vaccine aren’t being honest about what’s in it (27%), and fear/anxiety about needles (12%).
Resiliency a finite resource
Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry, New York University, said it’s not surprising that Americans are still suffering more anxiety than normal.
“The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey has shown that anxiety and depression levels have remained higher than normal since the pandemic began. That 43% of adults now say that the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health seems in line with what that survey has been reporting for over a year,” Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York, said in an interview.
He believes there are several reasons why anxiety levels remain high. One reason is something he’s noticed among his patients for years. “Most people struggle with anxiety especially at night when the noise and distractions of contemporary life fade away. This is the time of introspection,” he explained.
“Quarantine has been kind of like a protracted night because the distractions that are common in the so-called ‘rat race’ have been relatively muted for the past 14 months. I believe this has caused what you might call ‘forced introspection,’ and that this is giving rise to feelings of anxiety as people use their time alone to reassess their careers and their social lives and really begin to fret about some of the decisions that have led them to this point in their lives,” said Dr. Ahmad.
The other finding in the APA survey – that people are more concerned about their loved ones catching the virus than they were a year ago – is also not surprising, Dr. Ahmad said.
“Even though we seem to have turned a corner in the United States and the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the surge that went from roughly November through March of this year was more wide-reaching geographically than previous waves, and I think this made the severity of the virus far more real to people who lived in communities that had been spared severe outbreaks during the surges that we saw in the spring and summer of 2020,” Dr. Ahmad told this news organization.
“There’s also heightened concern over variants and the efficacy of the vaccine in treating these variants. Those who have families in other countries where the virus is surging, such as India or parts of Latin America, are likely experiencing additional stress and anxiety too,” he noted.
While the new APA poll findings are not surprising, they still are “deeply concerning,” Dr. Ahmad said.
“Resiliency is a finite resource, and people can only take so much stress before their mental health begins to suffer. For most people, this is not going to lead to some kind of overdramatic nervous breakdown. Instead, one may notice that they are more irritable than they once were, that they’re not sleeping particularly well, or that they have a nagging sense of discomfort and stress when doing activities that they used to think of as normal,” like taking a trip to the grocery store, meeting up with friends, or going to work, Dr. Ahmad said.
“Overcoming this kind of anxiety and reacclimating ourselves to social situations is going to take more time for some people than others, and that is perfectly natural,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.
“I don’t think it’s wise to try to put a limit on what constitutes a normal amount of time to readjust, and I think everyone in the field of mental health needs to avoid pathologizing any lingering sense of unease. No one needs to be medicated or diagnosed with a mental illness because they are nervous about going into public spaces in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic. We need to show a lot of patience and encourage people to readjust at their own pace for the foreseeable future,” Dr. Ahmad said.
Dr. Geller and Dr. Ahmad have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Concern and anxiety around COVID-19 remains high among Americans, with more people reporting mental health effects from the pandemic this year than last, and parents concerned about the mental health of their children, results of a new poll by the American Psychiatric Association show. Although the overall level of anxiety has decreased from last year’s APA poll, “the degree to which anxiety still reigns is concerning,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, told this news organization.
The results of the latest poll were presented at the American Psychiatric Association 2021 annual meeting and based on an online survey conducted March 26 to April 5 among a sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 years or older.
Serious mental health hit
In the new poll, about 4 in 10 Americans (41%) report they are more anxious than last year, down from just over 60%.
Young adults aged 18-29 years (49%) and Hispanic/Latinos (50%) are more likely to report being more anxious now than a year ago. Those 65 or older (30%) are less apt to say they feel more anxious than last year.
The latest poll also shows that Americans are more anxious about family and loved ones getting COVID-19 (64%) than about catching the virus themselves (49%).
Concern about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19 has increased since last year’s poll (conducted September 2020), rising from 56% then to 64% now. Hispanic/Latinx individuals (73%) and African American/Black individuals (76%) are more anxious about COVID-19 than White people (59%).
In the new poll, 43% of adults report the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health, up from 37% in 2020. Younger adults are more apt than older adults to report serious mental health effects.
Slightly fewer Americans report the pandemic is affecting their day-to-day life now as compared to a year ago, in ways such as problems sleeping (19% down from 22%), difficulty concentrating (18% down from 20%), and fighting more with loved ones (16% down from 17%).
The percentage of adults consuming more alcohol or other substances/drugs than normal increased slightly since last year (14%-17%). Additionally, 33% of adults (40% of women) report gaining weight during the pandemic.
Call to action
More than half of adults (53%) with children report they are concerned about the mental state of their children and almost half (48%) report the pandemic has caused mental health problems for one or more of their children, including minor problems for 29% and major problems for 19%.
More than a quarter (26%) of parents have sought professional mental health help for their children because of the pandemic.
; 23% received help from a primary care professional, 18% from a psychiatrist, 15% from a psychologist, 13% from a therapist, 10% from a social worker, and 10% from a school counselor or school psychologist.
More than 1 in 5 parents reported difficulty scheduling appointments for their child with a mental health professional.
“This poll shows that, even as vaccines become more widespread, Americans are still worried about the mental state of their children,” Dr. Geller said in a news release.
“This is a call to action for policymakers, who need to remember that, in our COVID-19 recovery, there’s no health without mental health,” he added.
Just over three-quarters (76%) of those surveyed say they have been or intend to get vaccinated; 22% say they don’t intend to get vaccinated; and 2% didn’t know.
For those who do not intend to get vaccinated, the primary concern (53%) is about side effects of the vaccine. Other reasons for not getting vaccinated include believing the vaccine is not effective (31%), believing the makers of the vaccine aren’t being honest about what’s in it (27%), and fear/anxiety about needles (12%).
Resiliency a finite resource
Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry, New York University, said it’s not surprising that Americans are still suffering more anxiety than normal.
“The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey has shown that anxiety and depression levels have remained higher than normal since the pandemic began. That 43% of adults now say that the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health seems in line with what that survey has been reporting for over a year,” Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York, said in an interview.
He believes there are several reasons why anxiety levels remain high. One reason is something he’s noticed among his patients for years. “Most people struggle with anxiety especially at night when the noise and distractions of contemporary life fade away. This is the time of introspection,” he explained.
“Quarantine has been kind of like a protracted night because the distractions that are common in the so-called ‘rat race’ have been relatively muted for the past 14 months. I believe this has caused what you might call ‘forced introspection,’ and that this is giving rise to feelings of anxiety as people use their time alone to reassess their careers and their social lives and really begin to fret about some of the decisions that have led them to this point in their lives,” said Dr. Ahmad.
The other finding in the APA survey – that people are more concerned about their loved ones catching the virus than they were a year ago – is also not surprising, Dr. Ahmad said.
“Even though we seem to have turned a corner in the United States and the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the surge that went from roughly November through March of this year was more wide-reaching geographically than previous waves, and I think this made the severity of the virus far more real to people who lived in communities that had been spared severe outbreaks during the surges that we saw in the spring and summer of 2020,” Dr. Ahmad told this news organization.
“There’s also heightened concern over variants and the efficacy of the vaccine in treating these variants. Those who have families in other countries where the virus is surging, such as India or parts of Latin America, are likely experiencing additional stress and anxiety too,” he noted.
While the new APA poll findings are not surprising, they still are “deeply concerning,” Dr. Ahmad said.
“Resiliency is a finite resource, and people can only take so much stress before their mental health begins to suffer. For most people, this is not going to lead to some kind of overdramatic nervous breakdown. Instead, one may notice that they are more irritable than they once were, that they’re not sleeping particularly well, or that they have a nagging sense of discomfort and stress when doing activities that they used to think of as normal,” like taking a trip to the grocery store, meeting up with friends, or going to work, Dr. Ahmad said.
“Overcoming this kind of anxiety and reacclimating ourselves to social situations is going to take more time for some people than others, and that is perfectly natural,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.
“I don’t think it’s wise to try to put a limit on what constitutes a normal amount of time to readjust, and I think everyone in the field of mental health needs to avoid pathologizing any lingering sense of unease. No one needs to be medicated or diagnosed with a mental illness because they are nervous about going into public spaces in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic. We need to show a lot of patience and encourage people to readjust at their own pace for the foreseeable future,” Dr. Ahmad said.
Dr. Geller and Dr. Ahmad have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Concern and anxiety around COVID-19 remains high among Americans, with more people reporting mental health effects from the pandemic this year than last, and parents concerned about the mental health of their children, results of a new poll by the American Psychiatric Association show. Although the overall level of anxiety has decreased from last year’s APA poll, “the degree to which anxiety still reigns is concerning,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, told this news organization.
The results of the latest poll were presented at the American Psychiatric Association 2021 annual meeting and based on an online survey conducted March 26 to April 5 among a sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 years or older.
Serious mental health hit
In the new poll, about 4 in 10 Americans (41%) report they are more anxious than last year, down from just over 60%.
Young adults aged 18-29 years (49%) and Hispanic/Latinos (50%) are more likely to report being more anxious now than a year ago. Those 65 or older (30%) are less apt to say they feel more anxious than last year.
The latest poll also shows that Americans are more anxious about family and loved ones getting COVID-19 (64%) than about catching the virus themselves (49%).
Concern about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19 has increased since last year’s poll (conducted September 2020), rising from 56% then to 64% now. Hispanic/Latinx individuals (73%) and African American/Black individuals (76%) are more anxious about COVID-19 than White people (59%).
In the new poll, 43% of adults report the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health, up from 37% in 2020. Younger adults are more apt than older adults to report serious mental health effects.
Slightly fewer Americans report the pandemic is affecting their day-to-day life now as compared to a year ago, in ways such as problems sleeping (19% down from 22%), difficulty concentrating (18% down from 20%), and fighting more with loved ones (16% down from 17%).
The percentage of adults consuming more alcohol or other substances/drugs than normal increased slightly since last year (14%-17%). Additionally, 33% of adults (40% of women) report gaining weight during the pandemic.
Call to action
More than half of adults (53%) with children report they are concerned about the mental state of their children and almost half (48%) report the pandemic has caused mental health problems for one or more of their children, including minor problems for 29% and major problems for 19%.
More than a quarter (26%) of parents have sought professional mental health help for their children because of the pandemic.
; 23% received help from a primary care professional, 18% from a psychiatrist, 15% from a psychologist, 13% from a therapist, 10% from a social worker, and 10% from a school counselor or school psychologist.
More than 1 in 5 parents reported difficulty scheduling appointments for their child with a mental health professional.
“This poll shows that, even as vaccines become more widespread, Americans are still worried about the mental state of their children,” Dr. Geller said in a news release.
“This is a call to action for policymakers, who need to remember that, in our COVID-19 recovery, there’s no health without mental health,” he added.
Just over three-quarters (76%) of those surveyed say they have been or intend to get vaccinated; 22% say they don’t intend to get vaccinated; and 2% didn’t know.
For those who do not intend to get vaccinated, the primary concern (53%) is about side effects of the vaccine. Other reasons for not getting vaccinated include believing the vaccine is not effective (31%), believing the makers of the vaccine aren’t being honest about what’s in it (27%), and fear/anxiety about needles (12%).
Resiliency a finite resource
Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry, New York University, said it’s not surprising that Americans are still suffering more anxiety than normal.
“The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey has shown that anxiety and depression levels have remained higher than normal since the pandemic began. That 43% of adults now say that the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health seems in line with what that survey has been reporting for over a year,” Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York, said in an interview.
He believes there are several reasons why anxiety levels remain high. One reason is something he’s noticed among his patients for years. “Most people struggle with anxiety especially at night when the noise and distractions of contemporary life fade away. This is the time of introspection,” he explained.
“Quarantine has been kind of like a protracted night because the distractions that are common in the so-called ‘rat race’ have been relatively muted for the past 14 months. I believe this has caused what you might call ‘forced introspection,’ and that this is giving rise to feelings of anxiety as people use their time alone to reassess their careers and their social lives and really begin to fret about some of the decisions that have led them to this point in their lives,” said Dr. Ahmad.
The other finding in the APA survey – that people are more concerned about their loved ones catching the virus than they were a year ago – is also not surprising, Dr. Ahmad said.
“Even though we seem to have turned a corner in the United States and the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the surge that went from roughly November through March of this year was more wide-reaching geographically than previous waves, and I think this made the severity of the virus far more real to people who lived in communities that had been spared severe outbreaks during the surges that we saw in the spring and summer of 2020,” Dr. Ahmad told this news organization.
“There’s also heightened concern over variants and the efficacy of the vaccine in treating these variants. Those who have families in other countries where the virus is surging, such as India or parts of Latin America, are likely experiencing additional stress and anxiety too,” he noted.
While the new APA poll findings are not surprising, they still are “deeply concerning,” Dr. Ahmad said.
“Resiliency is a finite resource, and people can only take so much stress before their mental health begins to suffer. For most people, this is not going to lead to some kind of overdramatic nervous breakdown. Instead, one may notice that they are more irritable than they once were, that they’re not sleeping particularly well, or that they have a nagging sense of discomfort and stress when doing activities that they used to think of as normal,” like taking a trip to the grocery store, meeting up with friends, or going to work, Dr. Ahmad said.
“Overcoming this kind of anxiety and reacclimating ourselves to social situations is going to take more time for some people than others, and that is perfectly natural,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.
“I don’t think it’s wise to try to put a limit on what constitutes a normal amount of time to readjust, and I think everyone in the field of mental health needs to avoid pathologizing any lingering sense of unease. No one needs to be medicated or diagnosed with a mental illness because they are nervous about going into public spaces in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic. We need to show a lot of patience and encourage people to readjust at their own pace for the foreseeable future,” Dr. Ahmad said.
Dr. Geller and Dr. Ahmad have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Police contact tied to elevated anxiety in young Black adults
Young Black adults who witness or experience police violence have significantly elevated levels of anxiety, new research shows.
In the first study to quantify the impact of police contact anxiety, investigators found it was associated with moderately severe anxiety levels in this group of individuals, highlighting the need to screen for exposure to police violence in this patient population, study investigator Robert O. Motley Jr, PhD, manager of the Race & Opportunity Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.
“If you’re working in an institution and providing clinical care, mental health care, or behavior health care, these additional measures should be included to get a much more holistic view of the exposure of these individuals in terms of traumatic events. These assessments can inform your decisions around care,” Dr. Motley added.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
‘Alarming’ rates of exposure
Evidence shows anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent conditions for Black people aged 18-29 years – an age group described as “emergent adulthood” because these individuals haven’t yet taken on full responsibilities of adulthood.
Research shows Black emergent adults are three to four times more likely than other ethnic groups to be exposed to actual or threatened nonfatal police violence, said Dr. Motley. “So they didn’t die, but were exposed to force, which could be things like police yelling at them, hitting or kicking them, pointing a gun at them, or tasing them.”
These individuals are also two to three times more likely to experience exposure to fatal police violence, and to be unarmed and killed, said Dr. Motley.
Evidence shows a clear link between exposure to stressful or traumatic events and anxiety disorders, but there has been little research examining the relationship between exposure to police violence and anxiety disorders among Black emergent adults, he said.
To assess the prevalence and correlates of “police contact anxiety” the investigators used computer-assisted surveys to collect data from 300 young Black college students in St. Louis who had been exposed to police violence at some point in their lives. The mean age of the sample was 20.4 years and included an equal number of men and women.
Work status for the previous year showed almost one-quarter (23.6%) were unemployed and about half worked part time. Almost two-thirds (62.6%) had an annual income of less than $10,000.
Respondents reported they had personally experienced police violence almost twice (a mean of 1.89) during their lifetime. The mean number of times they witnessed police using force against someone else was 7.82. Respondents also reported they had watched videos showing police use of force on the internet or television an average of 34.5 times.
This, said Dr. Motley, isn’t surprising given the growing number of young adults – of all races – who are using social media platforms to upload and share videos.
The researchers also looked at witnessing community violence, unrelated to police violence. Here, respondents had an average of 10.9 exposures.
Protectors or predators?
To examine the impact of police contact anxiety caused either by direct experience, or as a result of witnessing, or seeing a video of police use of violence in the past 30 days, the researchers created a “police contact anxiety” scale.
Respondents were asked six questions pertaining specifically to experiences during, or in anticipation of, police contact and its effects on anxiety levels.
For each of the six questions, participants rated the severity of anxiety on a scale of 0 (least severe) to 3 (most severe) for each exposure type. The final score had a potential range of 0-24.
Results showed police contact anxiety was moderately severe for all three exposure types with scores ranging from 13 to 14.
Ordinary least square regression analyses showed that, compared with unemployed participants, those who worked full time were less likely to have higher police contact anxiety as a result of seeing a video of police use of force (P < .05) – a finding Dr. Motley said was not surprising.
Employment, he noted, promotes individual self-efficacy, social participation, and mental health, which may provide a “buffer” to the effects of watching videos of police violence.
Dr. Motley noted that police officers “have been entrusted to serve and protect” the community, but “rarely face consequences when they use force against Black emergent adults; they’re rarely held accountable.”
These young Black adults “may perceive police officers as more of a threat to personal safety instead of a protector of it.”
Additional bivariate analyses showed that males had significantly higher scores than females for police contact anxiety because of witnessing police use of force.
This, too, was not surprising since males are exposed to more violence in general, said Dr. Motley.
It’s important to replicate the findings using a much larger and more diverse sample, he said. His next research project will be to collect data from a nationally representative sample of emerging adults across different ethnic groups and examining a range of different variables.
Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO of the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor in chief of Psychiatric News, called it “outstanding.”
“This is a very important issue,” said Dr. Borenstein, who moderated a press briefing that featured the study.
“We know anxiety is an extremely important condition and symptom, across the board for all groups, and often anxiety isn’t evaluated in the way that it needs to be. This is a great study that will lead to further research in this important area,” he added.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Motley and Dr. Borenstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Young Black adults who witness or experience police violence have significantly elevated levels of anxiety, new research shows.
In the first study to quantify the impact of police contact anxiety, investigators found it was associated with moderately severe anxiety levels in this group of individuals, highlighting the need to screen for exposure to police violence in this patient population, study investigator Robert O. Motley Jr, PhD, manager of the Race & Opportunity Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.
“If you’re working in an institution and providing clinical care, mental health care, or behavior health care, these additional measures should be included to get a much more holistic view of the exposure of these individuals in terms of traumatic events. These assessments can inform your decisions around care,” Dr. Motley added.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
‘Alarming’ rates of exposure
Evidence shows anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent conditions for Black people aged 18-29 years – an age group described as “emergent adulthood” because these individuals haven’t yet taken on full responsibilities of adulthood.
Research shows Black emergent adults are three to four times more likely than other ethnic groups to be exposed to actual or threatened nonfatal police violence, said Dr. Motley. “So they didn’t die, but were exposed to force, which could be things like police yelling at them, hitting or kicking them, pointing a gun at them, or tasing them.”
These individuals are also two to three times more likely to experience exposure to fatal police violence, and to be unarmed and killed, said Dr. Motley.
Evidence shows a clear link between exposure to stressful or traumatic events and anxiety disorders, but there has been little research examining the relationship between exposure to police violence and anxiety disorders among Black emergent adults, he said.
To assess the prevalence and correlates of “police contact anxiety” the investigators used computer-assisted surveys to collect data from 300 young Black college students in St. Louis who had been exposed to police violence at some point in their lives. The mean age of the sample was 20.4 years and included an equal number of men and women.
Work status for the previous year showed almost one-quarter (23.6%) were unemployed and about half worked part time. Almost two-thirds (62.6%) had an annual income of less than $10,000.
Respondents reported they had personally experienced police violence almost twice (a mean of 1.89) during their lifetime. The mean number of times they witnessed police using force against someone else was 7.82. Respondents also reported they had watched videos showing police use of force on the internet or television an average of 34.5 times.
This, said Dr. Motley, isn’t surprising given the growing number of young adults – of all races – who are using social media platforms to upload and share videos.
The researchers also looked at witnessing community violence, unrelated to police violence. Here, respondents had an average of 10.9 exposures.
Protectors or predators?
To examine the impact of police contact anxiety caused either by direct experience, or as a result of witnessing, or seeing a video of police use of violence in the past 30 days, the researchers created a “police contact anxiety” scale.
Respondents were asked six questions pertaining specifically to experiences during, or in anticipation of, police contact and its effects on anxiety levels.
For each of the six questions, participants rated the severity of anxiety on a scale of 0 (least severe) to 3 (most severe) for each exposure type. The final score had a potential range of 0-24.
Results showed police contact anxiety was moderately severe for all three exposure types with scores ranging from 13 to 14.
Ordinary least square regression analyses showed that, compared with unemployed participants, those who worked full time were less likely to have higher police contact anxiety as a result of seeing a video of police use of force (P < .05) – a finding Dr. Motley said was not surprising.
Employment, he noted, promotes individual self-efficacy, social participation, and mental health, which may provide a “buffer” to the effects of watching videos of police violence.
Dr. Motley noted that police officers “have been entrusted to serve and protect” the community, but “rarely face consequences when they use force against Black emergent adults; they’re rarely held accountable.”
These young Black adults “may perceive police officers as more of a threat to personal safety instead of a protector of it.”
Additional bivariate analyses showed that males had significantly higher scores than females for police contact anxiety because of witnessing police use of force.
This, too, was not surprising since males are exposed to more violence in general, said Dr. Motley.
It’s important to replicate the findings using a much larger and more diverse sample, he said. His next research project will be to collect data from a nationally representative sample of emerging adults across different ethnic groups and examining a range of different variables.
Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO of the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor in chief of Psychiatric News, called it “outstanding.”
“This is a very important issue,” said Dr. Borenstein, who moderated a press briefing that featured the study.
“We know anxiety is an extremely important condition and symptom, across the board for all groups, and often anxiety isn’t evaluated in the way that it needs to be. This is a great study that will lead to further research in this important area,” he added.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Motley and Dr. Borenstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Young Black adults who witness or experience police violence have significantly elevated levels of anxiety, new research shows.
In the first study to quantify the impact of police contact anxiety, investigators found it was associated with moderately severe anxiety levels in this group of individuals, highlighting the need to screen for exposure to police violence in this patient population, study investigator Robert O. Motley Jr, PhD, manager of the Race & Opportunity Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.
“If you’re working in an institution and providing clinical care, mental health care, or behavior health care, these additional measures should be included to get a much more holistic view of the exposure of these individuals in terms of traumatic events. These assessments can inform your decisions around care,” Dr. Motley added.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
‘Alarming’ rates of exposure
Evidence shows anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent conditions for Black people aged 18-29 years – an age group described as “emergent adulthood” because these individuals haven’t yet taken on full responsibilities of adulthood.
Research shows Black emergent adults are three to four times more likely than other ethnic groups to be exposed to actual or threatened nonfatal police violence, said Dr. Motley. “So they didn’t die, but were exposed to force, which could be things like police yelling at them, hitting or kicking them, pointing a gun at them, or tasing them.”
These individuals are also two to three times more likely to experience exposure to fatal police violence, and to be unarmed and killed, said Dr. Motley.
Evidence shows a clear link between exposure to stressful or traumatic events and anxiety disorders, but there has been little research examining the relationship between exposure to police violence and anxiety disorders among Black emergent adults, he said.
To assess the prevalence and correlates of “police contact anxiety” the investigators used computer-assisted surveys to collect data from 300 young Black college students in St. Louis who had been exposed to police violence at some point in their lives. The mean age of the sample was 20.4 years and included an equal number of men and women.
Work status for the previous year showed almost one-quarter (23.6%) were unemployed and about half worked part time. Almost two-thirds (62.6%) had an annual income of less than $10,000.
Respondents reported they had personally experienced police violence almost twice (a mean of 1.89) during their lifetime. The mean number of times they witnessed police using force against someone else was 7.82. Respondents also reported they had watched videos showing police use of force on the internet or television an average of 34.5 times.
This, said Dr. Motley, isn’t surprising given the growing number of young adults – of all races – who are using social media platforms to upload and share videos.
The researchers also looked at witnessing community violence, unrelated to police violence. Here, respondents had an average of 10.9 exposures.
Protectors or predators?
To examine the impact of police contact anxiety caused either by direct experience, or as a result of witnessing, or seeing a video of police use of violence in the past 30 days, the researchers created a “police contact anxiety” scale.
Respondents were asked six questions pertaining specifically to experiences during, or in anticipation of, police contact and its effects on anxiety levels.
For each of the six questions, participants rated the severity of anxiety on a scale of 0 (least severe) to 3 (most severe) for each exposure type. The final score had a potential range of 0-24.
Results showed police contact anxiety was moderately severe for all three exposure types with scores ranging from 13 to 14.
Ordinary least square regression analyses showed that, compared with unemployed participants, those who worked full time were less likely to have higher police contact anxiety as a result of seeing a video of police use of force (P < .05) – a finding Dr. Motley said was not surprising.
Employment, he noted, promotes individual self-efficacy, social participation, and mental health, which may provide a “buffer” to the effects of watching videos of police violence.
Dr. Motley noted that police officers “have been entrusted to serve and protect” the community, but “rarely face consequences when they use force against Black emergent adults; they’re rarely held accountable.”
These young Black adults “may perceive police officers as more of a threat to personal safety instead of a protector of it.”
Additional bivariate analyses showed that males had significantly higher scores than females for police contact anxiety because of witnessing police use of force.
This, too, was not surprising since males are exposed to more violence in general, said Dr. Motley.
It’s important to replicate the findings using a much larger and more diverse sample, he said. His next research project will be to collect data from a nationally representative sample of emerging adults across different ethnic groups and examining a range of different variables.
Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO of the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor in chief of Psychiatric News, called it “outstanding.”
“This is a very important issue,” said Dr. Borenstein, who moderated a press briefing that featured the study.
“We know anxiety is an extremely important condition and symptom, across the board for all groups, and often anxiety isn’t evaluated in the way that it needs to be. This is a great study that will lead to further research in this important area,” he added.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Motley and Dr. Borenstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The cloudy role of cannabis as a neuropsychiatric treatment
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Assessing perinatal anxiety: What to ask
Emerging data demonstrate that untreated perinatal anxiety is associated with negative outcomes, including an increased risk for suicide.1 A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis that included 102 studies with a total of 221,974 women from 34 countries found that the prevalence of self-reported anxiety symptoms and any anxiety disorder was 22.9% and 15.2%, respectively, across the 3 trimesters.1 During pregnancy, anxiety disorders (eg, generalized anxiety disorder) and anxiety-related disorders (eg, obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD] and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) can present as new illnesses or as a reoccurrence of an existing illness. Patients with pre-existing OCD may notice that the nature of their obsessions is changing. Women with pre-existing PTSD may have their symptoms triggered by pregnancy or delivery or may develop PTSD as a result of a traumatic delivery. Anxiety is frequently comorbid with depression, and high anxiety during pregnancy is one of the strongest risk factors for depression.1,2
In light of this data, awareness and recognition of perinatal anxiety is critical. In this article, we describe how to accurately assess perinatal anxiety by avoiding assumptions and asking key questions during the clinical interview.
Avoid these common assumptions
Assessment begins with avoiding assumptions typically associated with maternal mental health. One common assumption is that pregnancy is a joyous occasion for all women. Pregnancy can be a stressful time that has its own unique difficulties, including the potential to develop or have a relapse of a mental illness. Another assumption is that the only concern is “postpartum depression.” In actuality, a significant percentage of women will experience depression during their pregnancy (not just in the postpartum period), and many other psychiatric illnesses are common during the perinatal period, including anxiety disorders.
Conduct a focused interview
Risk factors associated with antenatal anxiety include2:
- previous history of mental illness (particularly a history of anxiety and depression and a history of psychiatric treatment)
- lack of partner or social support
- history of abuse or domestic violence
- unplanned or unwanted pregnancy
- adverse events in life and high perceived stress
- present/past pregnancy complications
- pregnancy loss.
Symptoms of anxiety. The presence of anxiety or worrying does not necessarily mean a mother has an anxiety disorder. Using the DSM-5 as a guide, we should use the questions outlined in the following sections to inquire about all of the symptoms related to a particular illness, the pervasiveness of these symptoms, and to what extent these symptoms impair a woman’s ability to function and carry out her usual activities.3
Past psychiatric history. Ask your patient the following: Have you previously experienced anxiety and/or depressive symptoms? Were those symptoms limited only to times when you were pregnant or postpartum? Were your symptoms severe enough to disrupt your life (job, school, relationships, ability to complete daily tasks)? What treatments were effective for your symptoms? What treatments were ineffective?3
Social factors. Learn more about your patient’s support systems by asking: Who do you consider to be part of your social support? How is your relationship with your social support? Are there challenges in your relationship with your friends, family, or partner? If yes, what are those challenges? Are there other children in the home, and do you have support for them? Is your home environment safe? Do you feel that you have what you need for the baby? What stressors are you currently experiencing? Do you attend support groups for expectant mothers? Are you engaged in perinatal care?3
Continue to: Given the high prevalence...
Given the high prevalence of interpersonal violence in women of reproductive age, all patients should be screened for this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women recommends screening for interpersonal violence at the first visit during the perinatal period, during each trimester, and at the postpartum visit (at minimum).4 Potential screening questions include (but are not limited to): Have you and/or your children ever been threatened by or felt afraid of your partner? When you argue with your partner, do either of you get physical? Has your partner ever physically hurt you (eg, hit, choked)? Do you feel safe at home? Do you have a safe place to go with resources you and your children will need in case of an emergency?4-6
Feelings toward pregnancy, past/current pregnancy complications, and pregnancy loss. Ask your patient: Was this pregnancy planned? How do you feel about your pregnancy? How do you see yourself as a mother? Do you currently have pregnancy complications and/or have had them in the past, and, if so, what are/were they? Have you lost a pregnancy? If so, what was that like? Do you have fears related to childbirth, and, if so, what are they?3
Intrusive thoughts about harming the baby. Intrusive thoughts are common in postpartum women with anxiety disorders, including OCD.7 Merely asking patients if they’ve had thoughts of harming their baby is incomplete and insufficient to assess for intrusive thoughts. This question does not distinguish between intrusive thoughts and homicidal ideation; this distinction is absolutely necessary given the difference in potential risk to the infant.
Intrusive thoughts are generally associated with a low risk of mothers acting on their thoughts. These thoughts are typically ego dystonic and, in the most severe form, can be distressing to an extent that they cause behavioral changes, such as avoiding bathing the infant, avoiding diaper changes, avoiding knives, or separating themselves from the infant.7 On the contrary, having homicidal ideation carries a higher risk for harm to the infant. Homicidal ideation may be seen in patients with co-occurring psychosis, poor reality testing, and delusions.5,7
Questions such as “Do you worry about harm coming to your baby?” “Do you worry about you causing harm to your baby?” and “Have you had an upsetting thought about harming your baby?” are more likely to reveal intrusive thoughts and prompt further exploration. Statements such as “Some people tell me that they have distressing thoughts about harm coming to their baby” can gently open the door to a having a dialogue about such thoughts. This dialogue is significantly important in making informed assessments as we develop comprehensive treatment plans.
1. Dennis CL, Falah-Hassani K, Shiri R. Prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. B J Psychiatry. 2017;210(5):315-323.
2. Biaggi A, Conroy S, Pawlby S, et al. Identifying the women at risk of antenatal anxiety and depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2016;191:62-77.
3. Kirby N, Kilsby A, Walker R. Assessing low mood during pregnancy. BMJ. 2019;366:I4584. doi: 10.1136/bmj.I4584
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. Committee opinion: Intimate partner violence. Number 518. February 2012. Accessed March 23, 2020. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2012/02/intimate-partner-violence
5. Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program for Moms Provider Toolkit. Accessed March 18, 2020. https://www.mcpapformoms.org/Docs/AdultProviderToolkit12.09.2019.pdf
6. Ashur ML. Asking about domestic violence: SAFE questions. JAMA. 1993;269(18):2367.
7. Brandes M, Soares CN, Cohen LS. Postpartum onset obsessive-compulsive disorder: diagnosis and management. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2004;7(2):99-110.
Emerging data demonstrate that untreated perinatal anxiety is associated with negative outcomes, including an increased risk for suicide.1 A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis that included 102 studies with a total of 221,974 women from 34 countries found that the prevalence of self-reported anxiety symptoms and any anxiety disorder was 22.9% and 15.2%, respectively, across the 3 trimesters.1 During pregnancy, anxiety disorders (eg, generalized anxiety disorder) and anxiety-related disorders (eg, obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD] and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) can present as new illnesses or as a reoccurrence of an existing illness. Patients with pre-existing OCD may notice that the nature of their obsessions is changing. Women with pre-existing PTSD may have their symptoms triggered by pregnancy or delivery or may develop PTSD as a result of a traumatic delivery. Anxiety is frequently comorbid with depression, and high anxiety during pregnancy is one of the strongest risk factors for depression.1,2
In light of this data, awareness and recognition of perinatal anxiety is critical. In this article, we describe how to accurately assess perinatal anxiety by avoiding assumptions and asking key questions during the clinical interview.
Avoid these common assumptions
Assessment begins with avoiding assumptions typically associated with maternal mental health. One common assumption is that pregnancy is a joyous occasion for all women. Pregnancy can be a stressful time that has its own unique difficulties, including the potential to develop or have a relapse of a mental illness. Another assumption is that the only concern is “postpartum depression.” In actuality, a significant percentage of women will experience depression during their pregnancy (not just in the postpartum period), and many other psychiatric illnesses are common during the perinatal period, including anxiety disorders.
Conduct a focused interview
Risk factors associated with antenatal anxiety include2:
- previous history of mental illness (particularly a history of anxiety and depression and a history of psychiatric treatment)
- lack of partner or social support
- history of abuse or domestic violence
- unplanned or unwanted pregnancy
- adverse events in life and high perceived stress
- present/past pregnancy complications
- pregnancy loss.
Symptoms of anxiety. The presence of anxiety or worrying does not necessarily mean a mother has an anxiety disorder. Using the DSM-5 as a guide, we should use the questions outlined in the following sections to inquire about all of the symptoms related to a particular illness, the pervasiveness of these symptoms, and to what extent these symptoms impair a woman’s ability to function and carry out her usual activities.3
Past psychiatric history. Ask your patient the following: Have you previously experienced anxiety and/or depressive symptoms? Were those symptoms limited only to times when you were pregnant or postpartum? Were your symptoms severe enough to disrupt your life (job, school, relationships, ability to complete daily tasks)? What treatments were effective for your symptoms? What treatments were ineffective?3
Social factors. Learn more about your patient’s support systems by asking: Who do you consider to be part of your social support? How is your relationship with your social support? Are there challenges in your relationship with your friends, family, or partner? If yes, what are those challenges? Are there other children in the home, and do you have support for them? Is your home environment safe? Do you feel that you have what you need for the baby? What stressors are you currently experiencing? Do you attend support groups for expectant mothers? Are you engaged in perinatal care?3
Continue to: Given the high prevalence...
Given the high prevalence of interpersonal violence in women of reproductive age, all patients should be screened for this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women recommends screening for interpersonal violence at the first visit during the perinatal period, during each trimester, and at the postpartum visit (at minimum).4 Potential screening questions include (but are not limited to): Have you and/or your children ever been threatened by or felt afraid of your partner? When you argue with your partner, do either of you get physical? Has your partner ever physically hurt you (eg, hit, choked)? Do you feel safe at home? Do you have a safe place to go with resources you and your children will need in case of an emergency?4-6
Feelings toward pregnancy, past/current pregnancy complications, and pregnancy loss. Ask your patient: Was this pregnancy planned? How do you feel about your pregnancy? How do you see yourself as a mother? Do you currently have pregnancy complications and/or have had them in the past, and, if so, what are/were they? Have you lost a pregnancy? If so, what was that like? Do you have fears related to childbirth, and, if so, what are they?3
Intrusive thoughts about harming the baby. Intrusive thoughts are common in postpartum women with anxiety disorders, including OCD.7 Merely asking patients if they’ve had thoughts of harming their baby is incomplete and insufficient to assess for intrusive thoughts. This question does not distinguish between intrusive thoughts and homicidal ideation; this distinction is absolutely necessary given the difference in potential risk to the infant.
Intrusive thoughts are generally associated with a low risk of mothers acting on their thoughts. These thoughts are typically ego dystonic and, in the most severe form, can be distressing to an extent that they cause behavioral changes, such as avoiding bathing the infant, avoiding diaper changes, avoiding knives, or separating themselves from the infant.7 On the contrary, having homicidal ideation carries a higher risk for harm to the infant. Homicidal ideation may be seen in patients with co-occurring psychosis, poor reality testing, and delusions.5,7
Questions such as “Do you worry about harm coming to your baby?” “Do you worry about you causing harm to your baby?” and “Have you had an upsetting thought about harming your baby?” are more likely to reveal intrusive thoughts and prompt further exploration. Statements such as “Some people tell me that they have distressing thoughts about harm coming to their baby” can gently open the door to a having a dialogue about such thoughts. This dialogue is significantly important in making informed assessments as we develop comprehensive treatment plans.
Emerging data demonstrate that untreated perinatal anxiety is associated with negative outcomes, including an increased risk for suicide.1 A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis that included 102 studies with a total of 221,974 women from 34 countries found that the prevalence of self-reported anxiety symptoms and any anxiety disorder was 22.9% and 15.2%, respectively, across the 3 trimesters.1 During pregnancy, anxiety disorders (eg, generalized anxiety disorder) and anxiety-related disorders (eg, obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD] and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) can present as new illnesses or as a reoccurrence of an existing illness. Patients with pre-existing OCD may notice that the nature of their obsessions is changing. Women with pre-existing PTSD may have their symptoms triggered by pregnancy or delivery or may develop PTSD as a result of a traumatic delivery. Anxiety is frequently comorbid with depression, and high anxiety during pregnancy is one of the strongest risk factors for depression.1,2
In light of this data, awareness and recognition of perinatal anxiety is critical. In this article, we describe how to accurately assess perinatal anxiety by avoiding assumptions and asking key questions during the clinical interview.
Avoid these common assumptions
Assessment begins with avoiding assumptions typically associated with maternal mental health. One common assumption is that pregnancy is a joyous occasion for all women. Pregnancy can be a stressful time that has its own unique difficulties, including the potential to develop or have a relapse of a mental illness. Another assumption is that the only concern is “postpartum depression.” In actuality, a significant percentage of women will experience depression during their pregnancy (not just in the postpartum period), and many other psychiatric illnesses are common during the perinatal period, including anxiety disorders.
Conduct a focused interview
Risk factors associated with antenatal anxiety include2:
- previous history of mental illness (particularly a history of anxiety and depression and a history of psychiatric treatment)
- lack of partner or social support
- history of abuse or domestic violence
- unplanned or unwanted pregnancy
- adverse events in life and high perceived stress
- present/past pregnancy complications
- pregnancy loss.
Symptoms of anxiety. The presence of anxiety or worrying does not necessarily mean a mother has an anxiety disorder. Using the DSM-5 as a guide, we should use the questions outlined in the following sections to inquire about all of the symptoms related to a particular illness, the pervasiveness of these symptoms, and to what extent these symptoms impair a woman’s ability to function and carry out her usual activities.3
Past psychiatric history. Ask your patient the following: Have you previously experienced anxiety and/or depressive symptoms? Were those symptoms limited only to times when you were pregnant or postpartum? Were your symptoms severe enough to disrupt your life (job, school, relationships, ability to complete daily tasks)? What treatments were effective for your symptoms? What treatments were ineffective?3
Social factors. Learn more about your patient’s support systems by asking: Who do you consider to be part of your social support? How is your relationship with your social support? Are there challenges in your relationship with your friends, family, or partner? If yes, what are those challenges? Are there other children in the home, and do you have support for them? Is your home environment safe? Do you feel that you have what you need for the baby? What stressors are you currently experiencing? Do you attend support groups for expectant mothers? Are you engaged in perinatal care?3
Continue to: Given the high prevalence...
Given the high prevalence of interpersonal violence in women of reproductive age, all patients should be screened for this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women recommends screening for interpersonal violence at the first visit during the perinatal period, during each trimester, and at the postpartum visit (at minimum).4 Potential screening questions include (but are not limited to): Have you and/or your children ever been threatened by or felt afraid of your partner? When you argue with your partner, do either of you get physical? Has your partner ever physically hurt you (eg, hit, choked)? Do you feel safe at home? Do you have a safe place to go with resources you and your children will need in case of an emergency?4-6
Feelings toward pregnancy, past/current pregnancy complications, and pregnancy loss. Ask your patient: Was this pregnancy planned? How do you feel about your pregnancy? How do you see yourself as a mother? Do you currently have pregnancy complications and/or have had them in the past, and, if so, what are/were they? Have you lost a pregnancy? If so, what was that like? Do you have fears related to childbirth, and, if so, what are they?3
Intrusive thoughts about harming the baby. Intrusive thoughts are common in postpartum women with anxiety disorders, including OCD.7 Merely asking patients if they’ve had thoughts of harming their baby is incomplete and insufficient to assess for intrusive thoughts. This question does not distinguish between intrusive thoughts and homicidal ideation; this distinction is absolutely necessary given the difference in potential risk to the infant.
Intrusive thoughts are generally associated with a low risk of mothers acting on their thoughts. These thoughts are typically ego dystonic and, in the most severe form, can be distressing to an extent that they cause behavioral changes, such as avoiding bathing the infant, avoiding diaper changes, avoiding knives, or separating themselves from the infant.7 On the contrary, having homicidal ideation carries a higher risk for harm to the infant. Homicidal ideation may be seen in patients with co-occurring psychosis, poor reality testing, and delusions.5,7
Questions such as “Do you worry about harm coming to your baby?” “Do you worry about you causing harm to your baby?” and “Have you had an upsetting thought about harming your baby?” are more likely to reveal intrusive thoughts and prompt further exploration. Statements such as “Some people tell me that they have distressing thoughts about harm coming to their baby” can gently open the door to a having a dialogue about such thoughts. This dialogue is significantly important in making informed assessments as we develop comprehensive treatment plans.
1. Dennis CL, Falah-Hassani K, Shiri R. Prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. B J Psychiatry. 2017;210(5):315-323.
2. Biaggi A, Conroy S, Pawlby S, et al. Identifying the women at risk of antenatal anxiety and depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2016;191:62-77.
3. Kirby N, Kilsby A, Walker R. Assessing low mood during pregnancy. BMJ. 2019;366:I4584. doi: 10.1136/bmj.I4584
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. Committee opinion: Intimate partner violence. Number 518. February 2012. Accessed March 23, 2020. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2012/02/intimate-partner-violence
5. Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program for Moms Provider Toolkit. Accessed March 18, 2020. https://www.mcpapformoms.org/Docs/AdultProviderToolkit12.09.2019.pdf
6. Ashur ML. Asking about domestic violence: SAFE questions. JAMA. 1993;269(18):2367.
7. Brandes M, Soares CN, Cohen LS. Postpartum onset obsessive-compulsive disorder: diagnosis and management. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2004;7(2):99-110.
1. Dennis CL, Falah-Hassani K, Shiri R. Prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. B J Psychiatry. 2017;210(5):315-323.
2. Biaggi A, Conroy S, Pawlby S, et al. Identifying the women at risk of antenatal anxiety and depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2016;191:62-77.
3. Kirby N, Kilsby A, Walker R. Assessing low mood during pregnancy. BMJ. 2019;366:I4584. doi: 10.1136/bmj.I4584
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. Committee opinion: Intimate partner violence. Number 518. February 2012. Accessed March 23, 2020. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2012/02/intimate-partner-violence
5. Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program for Moms Provider Toolkit. Accessed March 18, 2020. https://www.mcpapformoms.org/Docs/AdultProviderToolkit12.09.2019.pdf
6. Ashur ML. Asking about domestic violence: SAFE questions. JAMA. 1993;269(18):2367.
7. Brandes M, Soares CN, Cohen LS. Postpartum onset obsessive-compulsive disorder: diagnosis and management. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2004;7(2):99-110.
COVID lockdowns linked to PTSD in patients with eating disorders
COVID-19 and its resulting lockdowns are linked to posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and other adverse outcomes among patients with eating disorders (EDs), two new studies show.
Results of the first study show that patients with EDs had more stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD-related symptoms during the lockdowns than their mentally healthy peers.
In the second study, treatment-related symptom improvement among patients with bulimia nervosa (BN) slowed following lockdown. In addition, patients with BN or anorexia nervosa (AN) experienced significant worsening of disorder-specific behaviors, including binge eating and overexercising.
Because of the strict lockdown measures introduced by the Italian government to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, “everyday life of all citizens was disrupted,” Veronica Nisticò, MS, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, who led the first study, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2021 Congress.
In addition to difficulties in accessing health care, “it became difficult to go to the supermarket, to the gym, and to have the social support we were all used to,” all of which had a well-documented impact on mental health, added Ms. Nisticò, who is also affiliated with Aldo Ravelli Research Center for Neurotechnology and Experimental Brain Therapeutics.
Loss of control
Previous research suggests that individuals with EDs experience high levels of anxiety and an increase in binge eating, exercise, and purging behaviors, said Ms. Nisticò.
To investigate further, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study of the changes in prevalence of adverse outcomes. In the study, two assessments were conducted.
The second group served as the control group.
Participants completed an online survey that included several standardized depression and anxiety scales, as well as an ad hoc survey adapted from the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire. This assessed changes in restrictive dieting, control over food, body image, and psychological well-being in comparison with prepandemic levels.
The results, which were also recently published online in Eating and Weight Disorders – Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, showed that patients with EDs experienced significantly more stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD-related symptoms in comparison with control persons (P < .05 for all).
In addition, the investigators found that those with EDs were more fearful of losing control over their eating behavior, spent more time thinking about food and their body, and became more uncomfortable seeing their body than before the lockdown in comparison with those without EDs (P < .05).
Clinical implications
A second assessment, which occurred in June 2020, after lockdown restrictions were lifted, included 40 patients with EDs who had taken part in the first assessment. This time, participants were asked to compare their current eating behavior with their eating behavior during the lockdown.
Although the lifting of lockdown restrictions was associated with significant improvement in PTSD-related symptoms, the impact on stress, anxiety, and depression persisted.
These findings, said Ms. Nisticó, support the hypothesis that specific conditions that occurred during the lockdown had a direct effect on specific ED symptoms.
These findings, she added, should be considered when developing interventions for EDs in the context of individual psychotherapy and when designing large, preventive interventions.
In the second study, Eleonora Rossi, MD, psychiatric unit, department of health sciences, University of Florence (Italy), and colleagues examined the longitudinal impact of the pandemic on individuals with EDs.
They examined 74 patients with AN or BN who had undergone baseline assessments and had completed a number of questionnaires in the first months of 2019 in conjunction with being enrolled in another study.
Participants were treated with enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy and were reevaluated between November 2019 and January 2020. They were then compared with 97 healthy individuals.
Bulimia patients more vulnerable
After the outbreak of the pandemic, most treatment was administered online, so patients were able to continue therapy, Dr. Rossi said during her presentation.
All participants were assessed again in April 2020, 6 weeks after the start of Italy’s lockdown.
The results, which were published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders, show that the patients with EDs “underwent a significant improvement in terms of general and eating disorder specific psychopathology” during the first treatment period, Dr. Rossi reported. In addition, among those with AN, body mass index increased significantly (P < .05 for all).
Patients with AN continued to improve during the lockdown when therapy was administered online. However, improvements that had occurred among those with BN slowed, Dr. Rossi noted.
In addition, both groups of patients with EDs experienced a worsening of their pathological eating behaviors during the lockdown, in particular, objective binge eating and compensatory physical exercise (P < .05).
“Indeed, the positive trajectory of improvement observed before lockdown was clearly interrupted during the pandemic period,” Dr. Rossi said. This could “represent a possible hint of an imminent exacerbation of the disease.”
The results also suggest that the occurrence of arguments within the household and fear regarding the safety of loved ones predicted an increase in symptoms during the lockdown, she added.
In addition, patients with BN reported more severe COVID-related PTSD symptoms than did those with AN and the control group. This increase in severity of symptoms was more prevalent among patients who had a history of childhood trauma and among those with insecure attachment, suggesting that such patients may be more vulnerable.
Evidence of recovery
Commenting on the studies, David Spiegel, MD, associate chair of psychiatry, Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that EDs commonly occur after physical or sexual trauma earlier in life.
“It’s a standard thing with trauma-related disorders that any other, even relatively minor, traumatic experience can exacerbate PTSD symptoms,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved in the studies. In addition, the trauma of the COVID pandemic “was not minor.
“The relative isolation and the lack of outside contact may focus many people with eating disorders even more on their struggles with how they are taking care of their bodies,” said Dr. Spiegel.
“It struck me that the anorexia nervosa group were more impervious than the bulimia nervosa group, but I think that’s the case with the disorder. In some ways it’s more severe, obviously a more life-threatening disorder,” he added.
The “hopeful thing is that there seemed to be some evidence of recovery and improvement, particularly with the posttraumatic stress exacerbation, as time went on,” Dr. Spiegel said, “and that’s a good thing.”
The study authors and Dr. Spiegel reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 and its resulting lockdowns are linked to posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and other adverse outcomes among patients with eating disorders (EDs), two new studies show.
Results of the first study show that patients with EDs had more stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD-related symptoms during the lockdowns than their mentally healthy peers.
In the second study, treatment-related symptom improvement among patients with bulimia nervosa (BN) slowed following lockdown. In addition, patients with BN or anorexia nervosa (AN) experienced significant worsening of disorder-specific behaviors, including binge eating and overexercising.
Because of the strict lockdown measures introduced by the Italian government to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, “everyday life of all citizens was disrupted,” Veronica Nisticò, MS, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, who led the first study, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2021 Congress.
In addition to difficulties in accessing health care, “it became difficult to go to the supermarket, to the gym, and to have the social support we were all used to,” all of which had a well-documented impact on mental health, added Ms. Nisticò, who is also affiliated with Aldo Ravelli Research Center for Neurotechnology and Experimental Brain Therapeutics.
Loss of control
Previous research suggests that individuals with EDs experience high levels of anxiety and an increase in binge eating, exercise, and purging behaviors, said Ms. Nisticò.
To investigate further, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study of the changes in prevalence of adverse outcomes. In the study, two assessments were conducted.
The second group served as the control group.
Participants completed an online survey that included several standardized depression and anxiety scales, as well as an ad hoc survey adapted from the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire. This assessed changes in restrictive dieting, control over food, body image, and psychological well-being in comparison with prepandemic levels.
The results, which were also recently published online in Eating and Weight Disorders – Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, showed that patients with EDs experienced significantly more stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD-related symptoms in comparison with control persons (P < .05 for all).
In addition, the investigators found that those with EDs were more fearful of losing control over their eating behavior, spent more time thinking about food and their body, and became more uncomfortable seeing their body than before the lockdown in comparison with those without EDs (P < .05).
Clinical implications
A second assessment, which occurred in June 2020, after lockdown restrictions were lifted, included 40 patients with EDs who had taken part in the first assessment. This time, participants were asked to compare their current eating behavior with their eating behavior during the lockdown.
Although the lifting of lockdown restrictions was associated with significant improvement in PTSD-related symptoms, the impact on stress, anxiety, and depression persisted.
These findings, said Ms. Nisticó, support the hypothesis that specific conditions that occurred during the lockdown had a direct effect on specific ED symptoms.
These findings, she added, should be considered when developing interventions for EDs in the context of individual psychotherapy and when designing large, preventive interventions.
In the second study, Eleonora Rossi, MD, psychiatric unit, department of health sciences, University of Florence (Italy), and colleagues examined the longitudinal impact of the pandemic on individuals with EDs.
They examined 74 patients with AN or BN who had undergone baseline assessments and had completed a number of questionnaires in the first months of 2019 in conjunction with being enrolled in another study.
Participants were treated with enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy and were reevaluated between November 2019 and January 2020. They were then compared with 97 healthy individuals.
Bulimia patients more vulnerable
After the outbreak of the pandemic, most treatment was administered online, so patients were able to continue therapy, Dr. Rossi said during her presentation.
All participants were assessed again in April 2020, 6 weeks after the start of Italy’s lockdown.
The results, which were published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders, show that the patients with EDs “underwent a significant improvement in terms of general and eating disorder specific psychopathology” during the first treatment period, Dr. Rossi reported. In addition, among those with AN, body mass index increased significantly (P < .05 for all).
Patients with AN continued to improve during the lockdown when therapy was administered online. However, improvements that had occurred among those with BN slowed, Dr. Rossi noted.
In addition, both groups of patients with EDs experienced a worsening of their pathological eating behaviors during the lockdown, in particular, objective binge eating and compensatory physical exercise (P < .05).
“Indeed, the positive trajectory of improvement observed before lockdown was clearly interrupted during the pandemic period,” Dr. Rossi said. This could “represent a possible hint of an imminent exacerbation of the disease.”
The results also suggest that the occurrence of arguments within the household and fear regarding the safety of loved ones predicted an increase in symptoms during the lockdown, she added.
In addition, patients with BN reported more severe COVID-related PTSD symptoms than did those with AN and the control group. This increase in severity of symptoms was more prevalent among patients who had a history of childhood trauma and among those with insecure attachment, suggesting that such patients may be more vulnerable.
Evidence of recovery
Commenting on the studies, David Spiegel, MD, associate chair of psychiatry, Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that EDs commonly occur after physical or sexual trauma earlier in life.
“It’s a standard thing with trauma-related disorders that any other, even relatively minor, traumatic experience can exacerbate PTSD symptoms,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved in the studies. In addition, the trauma of the COVID pandemic “was not minor.
“The relative isolation and the lack of outside contact may focus many people with eating disorders even more on their struggles with how they are taking care of their bodies,” said Dr. Spiegel.
“It struck me that the anorexia nervosa group were more impervious than the bulimia nervosa group, but I think that’s the case with the disorder. In some ways it’s more severe, obviously a more life-threatening disorder,” he added.
The “hopeful thing is that there seemed to be some evidence of recovery and improvement, particularly with the posttraumatic stress exacerbation, as time went on,” Dr. Spiegel said, “and that’s a good thing.”
The study authors and Dr. Spiegel reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 and its resulting lockdowns are linked to posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and other adverse outcomes among patients with eating disorders (EDs), two new studies show.
Results of the first study show that patients with EDs had more stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD-related symptoms during the lockdowns than their mentally healthy peers.
In the second study, treatment-related symptom improvement among patients with bulimia nervosa (BN) slowed following lockdown. In addition, patients with BN or anorexia nervosa (AN) experienced significant worsening of disorder-specific behaviors, including binge eating and overexercising.
Because of the strict lockdown measures introduced by the Italian government to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, “everyday life of all citizens was disrupted,” Veronica Nisticò, MS, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, who led the first study, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2021 Congress.
In addition to difficulties in accessing health care, “it became difficult to go to the supermarket, to the gym, and to have the social support we were all used to,” all of which had a well-documented impact on mental health, added Ms. Nisticò, who is also affiliated with Aldo Ravelli Research Center for Neurotechnology and Experimental Brain Therapeutics.
Loss of control
Previous research suggests that individuals with EDs experience high levels of anxiety and an increase in binge eating, exercise, and purging behaviors, said Ms. Nisticò.
To investigate further, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study of the changes in prevalence of adverse outcomes. In the study, two assessments were conducted.
The second group served as the control group.
Participants completed an online survey that included several standardized depression and anxiety scales, as well as an ad hoc survey adapted from the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire. This assessed changes in restrictive dieting, control over food, body image, and psychological well-being in comparison with prepandemic levels.
The results, which were also recently published online in Eating and Weight Disorders – Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, showed that patients with EDs experienced significantly more stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD-related symptoms in comparison with control persons (P < .05 for all).
In addition, the investigators found that those with EDs were more fearful of losing control over their eating behavior, spent more time thinking about food and their body, and became more uncomfortable seeing their body than before the lockdown in comparison with those without EDs (P < .05).
Clinical implications
A second assessment, which occurred in June 2020, after lockdown restrictions were lifted, included 40 patients with EDs who had taken part in the first assessment. This time, participants were asked to compare their current eating behavior with their eating behavior during the lockdown.
Although the lifting of lockdown restrictions was associated with significant improvement in PTSD-related symptoms, the impact on stress, anxiety, and depression persisted.
These findings, said Ms. Nisticó, support the hypothesis that specific conditions that occurred during the lockdown had a direct effect on specific ED symptoms.
These findings, she added, should be considered when developing interventions for EDs in the context of individual psychotherapy and when designing large, preventive interventions.
In the second study, Eleonora Rossi, MD, psychiatric unit, department of health sciences, University of Florence (Italy), and colleagues examined the longitudinal impact of the pandemic on individuals with EDs.
They examined 74 patients with AN or BN who had undergone baseline assessments and had completed a number of questionnaires in the first months of 2019 in conjunction with being enrolled in another study.
Participants were treated with enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy and were reevaluated between November 2019 and January 2020. They were then compared with 97 healthy individuals.
Bulimia patients more vulnerable
After the outbreak of the pandemic, most treatment was administered online, so patients were able to continue therapy, Dr. Rossi said during her presentation.
All participants were assessed again in April 2020, 6 weeks after the start of Italy’s lockdown.
The results, which were published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders, show that the patients with EDs “underwent a significant improvement in terms of general and eating disorder specific psychopathology” during the first treatment period, Dr. Rossi reported. In addition, among those with AN, body mass index increased significantly (P < .05 for all).
Patients with AN continued to improve during the lockdown when therapy was administered online. However, improvements that had occurred among those with BN slowed, Dr. Rossi noted.
In addition, both groups of patients with EDs experienced a worsening of their pathological eating behaviors during the lockdown, in particular, objective binge eating and compensatory physical exercise (P < .05).
“Indeed, the positive trajectory of improvement observed before lockdown was clearly interrupted during the pandemic period,” Dr. Rossi said. This could “represent a possible hint of an imminent exacerbation of the disease.”
The results also suggest that the occurrence of arguments within the household and fear regarding the safety of loved ones predicted an increase in symptoms during the lockdown, she added.
In addition, patients with BN reported more severe COVID-related PTSD symptoms than did those with AN and the control group. This increase in severity of symptoms was more prevalent among patients who had a history of childhood trauma and among those with insecure attachment, suggesting that such patients may be more vulnerable.
Evidence of recovery
Commenting on the studies, David Spiegel, MD, associate chair of psychiatry, Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that EDs commonly occur after physical or sexual trauma earlier in life.
“It’s a standard thing with trauma-related disorders that any other, even relatively minor, traumatic experience can exacerbate PTSD symptoms,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved in the studies. In addition, the trauma of the COVID pandemic “was not minor.
“The relative isolation and the lack of outside contact may focus many people with eating disorders even more on their struggles with how they are taking care of their bodies,” said Dr. Spiegel.
“It struck me that the anorexia nervosa group were more impervious than the bulimia nervosa group, but I think that’s the case with the disorder. In some ways it’s more severe, obviously a more life-threatening disorder,” he added.
The “hopeful thing is that there seemed to be some evidence of recovery and improvement, particularly with the posttraumatic stress exacerbation, as time went on,” Dr. Spiegel said, “and that’s a good thing.”
The study authors and Dr. Spiegel reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What I want people to know about the Chauvin verdict
I woke up from a nap on Tuesday, April 20, to a barrage of text messages and social media alerts about the Derek Chauvin verdict. Messages varied in content, from “let’s celebrate,” to “just so exciting,” to “finally.” As I took in the sentiments of others, I could barely sense what, if any, sentiments I had of my own.
There I sat, a Black DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] consultant who calls herself a “psychiatrist-activist,” but slept through the landmark court decision for policing African Americans and felt almost nothing about it.
However, I did have feelings about other matters such as the slide decks due for my client, sending reassuring text messages about the hospitalization of a friend’s child, and the 2 weeks of patient notes on my to-do list. So why did I feel emotionally flatlined about an issue that should stimulate the opposite – emotional intensity?
The answer to “why” could be attributed to a number of psychological buzz words like trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, numbness, or my new favorite term, languishing.
Despite the applicability of any of the above, I think my emotional flattening has more to do with the fact that in addition to the guilty verdict, I also woke up to news that 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant had been shot by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio.
I asked myself: How can anyone find time to grieve, nevertheless celebrate when (young) Black people continue to be killed by the police?
While it hurts to see individuals who look like me being shot by police, or even emboldened citizens, my hurt likely pales in comparison to someone who grew up surrounded by police gun violence. I grew up solidly middle class, lived in a house at the end of a cul-de-sac in a semi-gated community, and have many years ahead of me to reach my earning potential as a physician in one of the most liberal cities in the nation. While I have the skin color that puts me at risk of being shot by police due to racism, I am in a cushy position compared to other Black people who live in cities or neighborhoods with more police shootings.
Given this line of thinking, it seems clearer to me why I do not feel like celebrating, but instead, feel grateful to be alive. Not only do I feel grateful to be alive, but alive with the emotional stamina to help White people understand their contributions to the widespread oppression that keeps our society rooted in white supremacy.
This brings me to my point of what I want people, especially physicians, to know about the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin: Some of us cannot really celebrate until there is actual police reform. This is not to say that anyone is wrong to celebrate, as long as there is an understanding that .
Meanwhile, White men like Kyle Rittenhouse who are peaceably arrested after shooting a man with a semi-automatic weapon receive donations from a Virginia police lieutenant; a policeman who, in a possible world, could one day pull me over while driving through Virginia given its proximity to Washington D.C., where I currently live.
Black and Brown people cannot fully celebrate until there is actual police reform, and reform across American institutions like the health care system. Celebration comes when the leaders who run schools, hospitals, and courtrooms look more like the numbers actually reflected in U.S. racial demographics and look less like Derek Chauvin.
Until there are more doctors who look like the racial breakdown of the nation, Black and Brown patients can never fully trust their primary care doctors, orthopedic surgeons, and psychiatrists who are White. While this reality may sound harsh, it is the reality for many of us who are dealing with trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, emotional numbness, or languishment resulting from racist experiences.
People of color cannot and will not stop protesting in the streets, being the one who always brings up race in the meeting, or disagreeing that the new changes are “not enough” until there is actual anti-racist institutional reform. More importantly, the efforts of people of color can be made more powerful working collectively with White allies.
But we need White allies who recognize their tendency to perceive “progress” in racial equality. We need White allies who recognize that despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the two-time election of a Black president, and the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, there is still so much work to do.
Dr. Cyrus is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I woke up from a nap on Tuesday, April 20, to a barrage of text messages and social media alerts about the Derek Chauvin verdict. Messages varied in content, from “let’s celebrate,” to “just so exciting,” to “finally.” As I took in the sentiments of others, I could barely sense what, if any, sentiments I had of my own.
There I sat, a Black DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] consultant who calls herself a “psychiatrist-activist,” but slept through the landmark court decision for policing African Americans and felt almost nothing about it.
However, I did have feelings about other matters such as the slide decks due for my client, sending reassuring text messages about the hospitalization of a friend’s child, and the 2 weeks of patient notes on my to-do list. So why did I feel emotionally flatlined about an issue that should stimulate the opposite – emotional intensity?
The answer to “why” could be attributed to a number of psychological buzz words like trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, numbness, or my new favorite term, languishing.
Despite the applicability of any of the above, I think my emotional flattening has more to do with the fact that in addition to the guilty verdict, I also woke up to news that 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant had been shot by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio.
I asked myself: How can anyone find time to grieve, nevertheless celebrate when (young) Black people continue to be killed by the police?
While it hurts to see individuals who look like me being shot by police, or even emboldened citizens, my hurt likely pales in comparison to someone who grew up surrounded by police gun violence. I grew up solidly middle class, lived in a house at the end of a cul-de-sac in a semi-gated community, and have many years ahead of me to reach my earning potential as a physician in one of the most liberal cities in the nation. While I have the skin color that puts me at risk of being shot by police due to racism, I am in a cushy position compared to other Black people who live in cities or neighborhoods with more police shootings.
Given this line of thinking, it seems clearer to me why I do not feel like celebrating, but instead, feel grateful to be alive. Not only do I feel grateful to be alive, but alive with the emotional stamina to help White people understand their contributions to the widespread oppression that keeps our society rooted in white supremacy.
This brings me to my point of what I want people, especially physicians, to know about the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin: Some of us cannot really celebrate until there is actual police reform. This is not to say that anyone is wrong to celebrate, as long as there is an understanding that .
Meanwhile, White men like Kyle Rittenhouse who are peaceably arrested after shooting a man with a semi-automatic weapon receive donations from a Virginia police lieutenant; a policeman who, in a possible world, could one day pull me over while driving through Virginia given its proximity to Washington D.C., where I currently live.
Black and Brown people cannot fully celebrate until there is actual police reform, and reform across American institutions like the health care system. Celebration comes when the leaders who run schools, hospitals, and courtrooms look more like the numbers actually reflected in U.S. racial demographics and look less like Derek Chauvin.
Until there are more doctors who look like the racial breakdown of the nation, Black and Brown patients can never fully trust their primary care doctors, orthopedic surgeons, and psychiatrists who are White. While this reality may sound harsh, it is the reality for many of us who are dealing with trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, emotional numbness, or languishment resulting from racist experiences.
People of color cannot and will not stop protesting in the streets, being the one who always brings up race in the meeting, or disagreeing that the new changes are “not enough” until there is actual anti-racist institutional reform. More importantly, the efforts of people of color can be made more powerful working collectively with White allies.
But we need White allies who recognize their tendency to perceive “progress” in racial equality. We need White allies who recognize that despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the two-time election of a Black president, and the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, there is still so much work to do.
Dr. Cyrus is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I woke up from a nap on Tuesday, April 20, to a barrage of text messages and social media alerts about the Derek Chauvin verdict. Messages varied in content, from “let’s celebrate,” to “just so exciting,” to “finally.” As I took in the sentiments of others, I could barely sense what, if any, sentiments I had of my own.
There I sat, a Black DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] consultant who calls herself a “psychiatrist-activist,” but slept through the landmark court decision for policing African Americans and felt almost nothing about it.
However, I did have feelings about other matters such as the slide decks due for my client, sending reassuring text messages about the hospitalization of a friend’s child, and the 2 weeks of patient notes on my to-do list. So why did I feel emotionally flatlined about an issue that should stimulate the opposite – emotional intensity?
The answer to “why” could be attributed to a number of psychological buzz words like trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, numbness, or my new favorite term, languishing.
Despite the applicability of any of the above, I think my emotional flattening has more to do with the fact that in addition to the guilty verdict, I also woke up to news that 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant had been shot by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio.
I asked myself: How can anyone find time to grieve, nevertheless celebrate when (young) Black people continue to be killed by the police?
While it hurts to see individuals who look like me being shot by police, or even emboldened citizens, my hurt likely pales in comparison to someone who grew up surrounded by police gun violence. I grew up solidly middle class, lived in a house at the end of a cul-de-sac in a semi-gated community, and have many years ahead of me to reach my earning potential as a physician in one of the most liberal cities in the nation. While I have the skin color that puts me at risk of being shot by police due to racism, I am in a cushy position compared to other Black people who live in cities or neighborhoods with more police shootings.
Given this line of thinking, it seems clearer to me why I do not feel like celebrating, but instead, feel grateful to be alive. Not only do I feel grateful to be alive, but alive with the emotional stamina to help White people understand their contributions to the widespread oppression that keeps our society rooted in white supremacy.
This brings me to my point of what I want people, especially physicians, to know about the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin: Some of us cannot really celebrate until there is actual police reform. This is not to say that anyone is wrong to celebrate, as long as there is an understanding that .
Meanwhile, White men like Kyle Rittenhouse who are peaceably arrested after shooting a man with a semi-automatic weapon receive donations from a Virginia police lieutenant; a policeman who, in a possible world, could one day pull me over while driving through Virginia given its proximity to Washington D.C., where I currently live.
Black and Brown people cannot fully celebrate until there is actual police reform, and reform across American institutions like the health care system. Celebration comes when the leaders who run schools, hospitals, and courtrooms look more like the numbers actually reflected in U.S. racial demographics and look less like Derek Chauvin.
Until there are more doctors who look like the racial breakdown of the nation, Black and Brown patients can never fully trust their primary care doctors, orthopedic surgeons, and psychiatrists who are White. While this reality may sound harsh, it is the reality for many of us who are dealing with trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, emotional numbness, or languishment resulting from racist experiences.
People of color cannot and will not stop protesting in the streets, being the one who always brings up race in the meeting, or disagreeing that the new changes are “not enough” until there is actual anti-racist institutional reform. More importantly, the efforts of people of color can be made more powerful working collectively with White allies.
But we need White allies who recognize their tendency to perceive “progress” in racial equality. We need White allies who recognize that despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the two-time election of a Black president, and the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, there is still so much work to do.
Dr. Cyrus is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chauvin guilty verdict: Now it’s time to get to work
On Tuesday, April 20, the country braced for the impact of the trial verdict in death of George Floyd. Despite the case having what many would consider an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing toward conviction, if we’re completely honest, the country – and particularly the African American community – had significant doubts that the jury would render a guilty verdict.
In the hour leading up to the announcement, people and images dominated my thoughts; Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Rashard Brooks, and most recently, Daunte Wright. With the deaths of these Black Americans and many others as historical context, I took a stoic stance and held my breath as the verdict was read. Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
As Mr. Chauvin was remanded to custody and led away in handcuffs, it was clear there were no “winners” in this verdict. Mr. Floyd is still dead, and violent encounters experienced by Black Americans continue at a vastly disproportionate rate. The result is far from true justice, but what we as a country do have is a moment of accountability – and perhaps an opportunity for true system-level reform.
The final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, released in May 2015, recommended major policy changes at the federal level and developed key pillars aimed at promoting effective crime reduction while building public trust. Based on this report, four key takeaways are relevant to any discussion of police reform. All are vitally important, but two stand out as particularly relevant in the aftermath of the verdict. One of the key recommendations was “embracing a guardian – rather than a warrior mindset” in an effort to build trust and legitimacy. Another was ensuring that “peace officer and standards training (POST) boards include mandatory Crisis Intervention Training.”
As health professionals, we know that the ultimate effectiveness of any intervention is based upon the amount of shared trust and collaboration in the patient-physician relationship. As a consultation-liaison psychiatrist, I’ve been trained to recognize that, when requested to consult on a case, I’m frequently not making a medical diagnosis or delivering an intervention; I’m helping the team and patient reestablish trust in each other. Communication skills and techniques help start a dialogue, but you will ultimately fall short of shared understanding without trust. The underpinning of trust could begin with a commitment to procedural justice. Procedural justice, as described in The Justice Collaboratory of Yale Law School, “speaks to the idea of fair processes and how the quality of their experiences strongly impacts people’s perception of fairness.” There are four central tenets of procedural justice:
- Whether they were treated with dignity and respect.
- Whether they were given voice.
- Whether the decision-maker was neutral and transparent.
- Whether the decision-maker conveyed trustworthy motives.
These four tenets have been researched and shown to improve the trust and confidence a community has in police, and lay the foundation for creating a standard set of shared interests and values.
As health professionals, there are many aspects of procedural justice that we can and should embrace, particularly as we come to our reckoning with the use of restraints in medical settings.
Building on the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, from January 2015 through December 2018, implemented a six-city intervention aimed at generating measurable improvements in officer behavior, public safety, and community trust in police. The National Initiative was organized around three principal ideas: procedural justice, implicit bias training, and reconciliation and candid conversations about law enforcement’s historic role in racial tensions.
In addition to the recommendations of the federal government and independent institutions, national-level health policy organizations have made clear statements regarding police brutality and the need for systemic reform to address police brutality and systemic racism. In 2018, the American Psychiatric Association released a position statement on Police Brutality and Black Males. This was then followed in 2020 with a joint statement from the National Medical Association and the APA condemning systemic racism and police violence against Black Americans. Other health policy associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Association of Medical Colleges, have made clear statements condemning systemic racism and police brutality.
In the aftermath of the verdict, we also saw something very different. In our partisan country, there appeared to be uniform common ground. Statements were made acknowledging the importance of this historic moment, from police unions, and both political parties, and various invested grassroots organizations. In short, we may have true agreement and motivation to take the next hard steps in police reform for this country. There will be policy discussions and new mandates for training, and certainly a push to ban the use of lethal techniques, such as choke holds. While helpful, these will ultimately fall short unless we hold ourselves accountable for a true culture change.
The challenge of implementing procedural justice shouldn’t be just a law enforcement challenge, and it shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of communities with high crime areas. In other words, no single racial group should own it. Ultimately, procedural justice will need to be embraced by all of us.
On April 20, as I watched the verdict, my oldest daughter watched with me, and she asked, “What do you think, Dad?” I responded: “It’s accountability and an opportunity.” She nodded her head with resolve. She then grabbed her smartphone and jumped into social media and proclaimed in her very knowledgeable teenage voice, “See Dad, one voice is cool, but many voices in unison is better; time to get to work!” To Darnella Frazier, who captured the crime on video at age 17, and all in your generation who dare to hold us accountable, I salute you. I thank you for forcing us to look even when it was painful and not ignore the humanity of our fellow man. It is indeed time to get to work.
Dr. Norris is associate dean of student affairs and administration at George Washington University, Washington. He has no disclosures.
On Tuesday, April 20, the country braced for the impact of the trial verdict in death of George Floyd. Despite the case having what many would consider an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing toward conviction, if we’re completely honest, the country – and particularly the African American community – had significant doubts that the jury would render a guilty verdict.
In the hour leading up to the announcement, people and images dominated my thoughts; Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Rashard Brooks, and most recently, Daunte Wright. With the deaths of these Black Americans and many others as historical context, I took a stoic stance and held my breath as the verdict was read. Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
As Mr. Chauvin was remanded to custody and led away in handcuffs, it was clear there were no “winners” in this verdict. Mr. Floyd is still dead, and violent encounters experienced by Black Americans continue at a vastly disproportionate rate. The result is far from true justice, but what we as a country do have is a moment of accountability – and perhaps an opportunity for true system-level reform.
The final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, released in May 2015, recommended major policy changes at the federal level and developed key pillars aimed at promoting effective crime reduction while building public trust. Based on this report, four key takeaways are relevant to any discussion of police reform. All are vitally important, but two stand out as particularly relevant in the aftermath of the verdict. One of the key recommendations was “embracing a guardian – rather than a warrior mindset” in an effort to build trust and legitimacy. Another was ensuring that “peace officer and standards training (POST) boards include mandatory Crisis Intervention Training.”
As health professionals, we know that the ultimate effectiveness of any intervention is based upon the amount of shared trust and collaboration in the patient-physician relationship. As a consultation-liaison psychiatrist, I’ve been trained to recognize that, when requested to consult on a case, I’m frequently not making a medical diagnosis or delivering an intervention; I’m helping the team and patient reestablish trust in each other. Communication skills and techniques help start a dialogue, but you will ultimately fall short of shared understanding without trust. The underpinning of trust could begin with a commitment to procedural justice. Procedural justice, as described in The Justice Collaboratory of Yale Law School, “speaks to the idea of fair processes and how the quality of their experiences strongly impacts people’s perception of fairness.” There are four central tenets of procedural justice:
- Whether they were treated with dignity and respect.
- Whether they were given voice.
- Whether the decision-maker was neutral and transparent.
- Whether the decision-maker conveyed trustworthy motives.
These four tenets have been researched and shown to improve the trust and confidence a community has in police, and lay the foundation for creating a standard set of shared interests and values.
As health professionals, there are many aspects of procedural justice that we can and should embrace, particularly as we come to our reckoning with the use of restraints in medical settings.
Building on the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, from January 2015 through December 2018, implemented a six-city intervention aimed at generating measurable improvements in officer behavior, public safety, and community trust in police. The National Initiative was organized around three principal ideas: procedural justice, implicit bias training, and reconciliation and candid conversations about law enforcement’s historic role in racial tensions.
In addition to the recommendations of the federal government and independent institutions, national-level health policy organizations have made clear statements regarding police brutality and the need for systemic reform to address police brutality and systemic racism. In 2018, the American Psychiatric Association released a position statement on Police Brutality and Black Males. This was then followed in 2020 with a joint statement from the National Medical Association and the APA condemning systemic racism and police violence against Black Americans. Other health policy associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Association of Medical Colleges, have made clear statements condemning systemic racism and police brutality.
In the aftermath of the verdict, we also saw something very different. In our partisan country, there appeared to be uniform common ground. Statements were made acknowledging the importance of this historic moment, from police unions, and both political parties, and various invested grassroots organizations. In short, we may have true agreement and motivation to take the next hard steps in police reform for this country. There will be policy discussions and new mandates for training, and certainly a push to ban the use of lethal techniques, such as choke holds. While helpful, these will ultimately fall short unless we hold ourselves accountable for a true culture change.
The challenge of implementing procedural justice shouldn’t be just a law enforcement challenge, and it shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of communities with high crime areas. In other words, no single racial group should own it. Ultimately, procedural justice will need to be embraced by all of us.
On April 20, as I watched the verdict, my oldest daughter watched with me, and she asked, “What do you think, Dad?” I responded: “It’s accountability and an opportunity.” She nodded her head with resolve. She then grabbed her smartphone and jumped into social media and proclaimed in her very knowledgeable teenage voice, “See Dad, one voice is cool, but many voices in unison is better; time to get to work!” To Darnella Frazier, who captured the crime on video at age 17, and all in your generation who dare to hold us accountable, I salute you. I thank you for forcing us to look even when it was painful and not ignore the humanity of our fellow man. It is indeed time to get to work.
Dr. Norris is associate dean of student affairs and administration at George Washington University, Washington. He has no disclosures.
On Tuesday, April 20, the country braced for the impact of the trial verdict in death of George Floyd. Despite the case having what many would consider an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing toward conviction, if we’re completely honest, the country – and particularly the African American community – had significant doubts that the jury would render a guilty verdict.
In the hour leading up to the announcement, people and images dominated my thoughts; Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Rashard Brooks, and most recently, Daunte Wright. With the deaths of these Black Americans and many others as historical context, I took a stoic stance and held my breath as the verdict was read. Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
As Mr. Chauvin was remanded to custody and led away in handcuffs, it was clear there were no “winners” in this verdict. Mr. Floyd is still dead, and violent encounters experienced by Black Americans continue at a vastly disproportionate rate. The result is far from true justice, but what we as a country do have is a moment of accountability – and perhaps an opportunity for true system-level reform.
The final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, released in May 2015, recommended major policy changes at the federal level and developed key pillars aimed at promoting effective crime reduction while building public trust. Based on this report, four key takeaways are relevant to any discussion of police reform. All are vitally important, but two stand out as particularly relevant in the aftermath of the verdict. One of the key recommendations was “embracing a guardian – rather than a warrior mindset” in an effort to build trust and legitimacy. Another was ensuring that “peace officer and standards training (POST) boards include mandatory Crisis Intervention Training.”
As health professionals, we know that the ultimate effectiveness of any intervention is based upon the amount of shared trust and collaboration in the patient-physician relationship. As a consultation-liaison psychiatrist, I’ve been trained to recognize that, when requested to consult on a case, I’m frequently not making a medical diagnosis or delivering an intervention; I’m helping the team and patient reestablish trust in each other. Communication skills and techniques help start a dialogue, but you will ultimately fall short of shared understanding without trust. The underpinning of trust could begin with a commitment to procedural justice. Procedural justice, as described in The Justice Collaboratory of Yale Law School, “speaks to the idea of fair processes and how the quality of their experiences strongly impacts people’s perception of fairness.” There are four central tenets of procedural justice:
- Whether they were treated with dignity and respect.
- Whether they were given voice.
- Whether the decision-maker was neutral and transparent.
- Whether the decision-maker conveyed trustworthy motives.
These four tenets have been researched and shown to improve the trust and confidence a community has in police, and lay the foundation for creating a standard set of shared interests and values.
As health professionals, there are many aspects of procedural justice that we can and should embrace, particularly as we come to our reckoning with the use of restraints in medical settings.
Building on the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, from January 2015 through December 2018, implemented a six-city intervention aimed at generating measurable improvements in officer behavior, public safety, and community trust in police. The National Initiative was organized around three principal ideas: procedural justice, implicit bias training, and reconciliation and candid conversations about law enforcement’s historic role in racial tensions.
In addition to the recommendations of the federal government and independent institutions, national-level health policy organizations have made clear statements regarding police brutality and the need for systemic reform to address police brutality and systemic racism. In 2018, the American Psychiatric Association released a position statement on Police Brutality and Black Males. This was then followed in 2020 with a joint statement from the National Medical Association and the APA condemning systemic racism and police violence against Black Americans. Other health policy associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Association of Medical Colleges, have made clear statements condemning systemic racism and police brutality.
In the aftermath of the verdict, we also saw something very different. In our partisan country, there appeared to be uniform common ground. Statements were made acknowledging the importance of this historic moment, from police unions, and both political parties, and various invested grassroots organizations. In short, we may have true agreement and motivation to take the next hard steps in police reform for this country. There will be policy discussions and new mandates for training, and certainly a push to ban the use of lethal techniques, such as choke holds. While helpful, these will ultimately fall short unless we hold ourselves accountable for a true culture change.
The challenge of implementing procedural justice shouldn’t be just a law enforcement challenge, and it shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of communities with high crime areas. In other words, no single racial group should own it. Ultimately, procedural justice will need to be embraced by all of us.
On April 20, as I watched the verdict, my oldest daughter watched with me, and she asked, “What do you think, Dad?” I responded: “It’s accountability and an opportunity.” She nodded her head with resolve. She then grabbed her smartphone and jumped into social media and proclaimed in her very knowledgeable teenage voice, “See Dad, one voice is cool, but many voices in unison is better; time to get to work!” To Darnella Frazier, who captured the crime on video at age 17, and all in your generation who dare to hold us accountable, I salute you. I thank you for forcing us to look even when it was painful and not ignore the humanity of our fellow man. It is indeed time to get to work.
Dr. Norris is associate dean of student affairs and administration at George Washington University, Washington. He has no disclosures.
Shedding the super doctor myth
It’s been more than a year since we came face to face with an unprecedented, unrelenting pandemic. Determined to overcome, determined to forge ahead, we worked tirelessly.
Hours upon hours, days upon days, months upon months. Hoping for recovery while facing the devastation of death. We were praised, and lauded as heroes as we pleaded for essential protective gear and urged our communities to think critically, act responsibly, and distance safely. From the cities to small towns, we answered the call. Leaving long-practiced specialties, reassigned from our practices and training, we worked together uncertain of the future, but committed to safeguarding our present. Through sacrifice we toiled, leaving our families to protect against contagion, wading through halls of the sick and fighting against the threat of death.
As days swept into months, the impact of isolation and economic deceleration yielded cracks on the surface. Pay cuts loomed, furloughs abounded, and distance-learning infiltrated the medical community. Yet, COVID-19 reigned, and with it came frustration, exhaustion, and emotional defeat. Despite racial reckonings, political turmoil, and massive protests, we worked tirelessly. We persevered.
Throughout 2020, the praise of “Health Care Heroes” rang out around the world. We saw images of medical professionals diligently working through the unthinkable with grace and humility, truly sacrificing for the greater good without complaint. Day after day, hour after hour, month after month. All the while, cracks were surfacing, expanding wider, and penetrating deeper. We were weary.
During a recent appointment with my primary care physician, she looked at me, her eyes brimming with earnest compassion, and said, “If you have suicidal thoughts, please let me know. That is my biggest worry with doctors.” I knowingly looked at her, keen in understanding as I recalled the stories. Doctors overwhelmed and uncertain, released by the abrupt completion of suicide.
Although broader government agencies may regulate and enforce, it is up to us to facilitate and comply. The pressure is immense, but our calling is strong – an unspoken agreement that begins with an oath.
As a psychiatrist, I am acutely aware of the warning signs associated with suicidality. Reading through the stories of loss and seeing the bewilderment and despair of the bereft, I once again wonder whether the pressure of medicine is worth the cost. How can we be “Health Care Heroes” if we fail to recognize the fragility that resides within ourselves? Moreover, how do we see beyond the illusion of invulnerability and accept that vulnerability is not a sign of weakness but a hallmark of strength and empathy? These are some of the issues I will be exploring in this new column, Myth of the Super Doctor.
Beginning at the beginning
Addressing these issues starts with training. As a new cohort of eager students enters medical/osteopathic school, the focus should lie not only on foundations of medicine and brute memorization of copious information but also on self-care, wellness checks, and group morale. The same emphasis placed upon patient care and advocacy must also be extended toward ensuring that the next generation of physicians will understand the importance of caring for themselves as much as they care for others.
In the same manner, past stereotypes of ruthless, cut-throat, competition must also evolve. Although the spirit of hard work and perseverance is essential, the manner it propagates is just as important. Aggressive questioning, myriad testing, rigid hierarchies, blind obedience, and ego inflation may separate the pack, but it also reinforces individualism and isolation. Students may shield their internal turmoil behind a mask. The mask of the Super Doctor.
However, as the pandemic has shown, even the most durable of masks will eventually fail. So how do we recognize and accept that help is needed? How do we access support? First, it is vital to acknowledge that there is no shame in asking for help. It is both surprising and reassuring that many of us have been there, an unspoken band of brothers and sisters. Second, remember the acronym for depressive symptoms SIGECAPS (sleep, interest, guilt, energy, concentration, appetite, psychomotor, suicide). Remember that these symptoms may develop gradually or feel sudden and overwhelming. Know that mood lability, tearfulness, and isolation may also be present but confused and disregarded as normal consequences of school, residency, or life as a physician. Third, recognize common behavioral changes associated with anxiety, such as irritability, avoidance, and physical symptoms, including headache, muscle aches, joint pain, GI discomfort, palpitations, and insomnia. Last, reach out to colleagues who have suddenly or gradually withdrawn. Schedule frequent check-ins for one another and do not be afraid to admit that you are human. There is no shame in vulnerability but there is bravery and strength.
If you are in school or residency training, reach out to health centers, training directors, supervisors, family and/or friends. Whether you are an early career physician or amid a decades-long career, connect with your peers, reach out to junior members, offer and accept support. Anonymous hotlines, listservs, email groups, virtual meetings, texts, and phone calls also provide opportunities for wellness checks, pep talks, or venting sessions. All are important. In the case where more specialized help is needed, contact your primary care physician, reach out to colleagues in mental health, contact the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800 273-8255. Know there is help; you are not alone.
In these unprecedented and uncertain times, remember the African proverb “It takes a village.” To ask for help reveals strength and fortitude. The more we advocate for ourselves and one another, the more we will prevail and shed the myth of infallibility.
Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.
It’s been more than a year since we came face to face with an unprecedented, unrelenting pandemic. Determined to overcome, determined to forge ahead, we worked tirelessly.
Hours upon hours, days upon days, months upon months. Hoping for recovery while facing the devastation of death. We were praised, and lauded as heroes as we pleaded for essential protective gear and urged our communities to think critically, act responsibly, and distance safely. From the cities to small towns, we answered the call. Leaving long-practiced specialties, reassigned from our practices and training, we worked together uncertain of the future, but committed to safeguarding our present. Through sacrifice we toiled, leaving our families to protect against contagion, wading through halls of the sick and fighting against the threat of death.
As days swept into months, the impact of isolation and economic deceleration yielded cracks on the surface. Pay cuts loomed, furloughs abounded, and distance-learning infiltrated the medical community. Yet, COVID-19 reigned, and with it came frustration, exhaustion, and emotional defeat. Despite racial reckonings, political turmoil, and massive protests, we worked tirelessly. We persevered.
Throughout 2020, the praise of “Health Care Heroes” rang out around the world. We saw images of medical professionals diligently working through the unthinkable with grace and humility, truly sacrificing for the greater good without complaint. Day after day, hour after hour, month after month. All the while, cracks were surfacing, expanding wider, and penetrating deeper. We were weary.
During a recent appointment with my primary care physician, she looked at me, her eyes brimming with earnest compassion, and said, “If you have suicidal thoughts, please let me know. That is my biggest worry with doctors.” I knowingly looked at her, keen in understanding as I recalled the stories. Doctors overwhelmed and uncertain, released by the abrupt completion of suicide.
Although broader government agencies may regulate and enforce, it is up to us to facilitate and comply. The pressure is immense, but our calling is strong – an unspoken agreement that begins with an oath.
As a psychiatrist, I am acutely aware of the warning signs associated with suicidality. Reading through the stories of loss and seeing the bewilderment and despair of the bereft, I once again wonder whether the pressure of medicine is worth the cost. How can we be “Health Care Heroes” if we fail to recognize the fragility that resides within ourselves? Moreover, how do we see beyond the illusion of invulnerability and accept that vulnerability is not a sign of weakness but a hallmark of strength and empathy? These are some of the issues I will be exploring in this new column, Myth of the Super Doctor.
Beginning at the beginning
Addressing these issues starts with training. As a new cohort of eager students enters medical/osteopathic school, the focus should lie not only on foundations of medicine and brute memorization of copious information but also on self-care, wellness checks, and group morale. The same emphasis placed upon patient care and advocacy must also be extended toward ensuring that the next generation of physicians will understand the importance of caring for themselves as much as they care for others.
In the same manner, past stereotypes of ruthless, cut-throat, competition must also evolve. Although the spirit of hard work and perseverance is essential, the manner it propagates is just as important. Aggressive questioning, myriad testing, rigid hierarchies, blind obedience, and ego inflation may separate the pack, but it also reinforces individualism and isolation. Students may shield their internal turmoil behind a mask. The mask of the Super Doctor.
However, as the pandemic has shown, even the most durable of masks will eventually fail. So how do we recognize and accept that help is needed? How do we access support? First, it is vital to acknowledge that there is no shame in asking for help. It is both surprising and reassuring that many of us have been there, an unspoken band of brothers and sisters. Second, remember the acronym for depressive symptoms SIGECAPS (sleep, interest, guilt, energy, concentration, appetite, psychomotor, suicide). Remember that these symptoms may develop gradually or feel sudden and overwhelming. Know that mood lability, tearfulness, and isolation may also be present but confused and disregarded as normal consequences of school, residency, or life as a physician. Third, recognize common behavioral changes associated with anxiety, such as irritability, avoidance, and physical symptoms, including headache, muscle aches, joint pain, GI discomfort, palpitations, and insomnia. Last, reach out to colleagues who have suddenly or gradually withdrawn. Schedule frequent check-ins for one another and do not be afraid to admit that you are human. There is no shame in vulnerability but there is bravery and strength.
If you are in school or residency training, reach out to health centers, training directors, supervisors, family and/or friends. Whether you are an early career physician or amid a decades-long career, connect with your peers, reach out to junior members, offer and accept support. Anonymous hotlines, listservs, email groups, virtual meetings, texts, and phone calls also provide opportunities for wellness checks, pep talks, or venting sessions. All are important. In the case where more specialized help is needed, contact your primary care physician, reach out to colleagues in mental health, contact the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800 273-8255. Know there is help; you are not alone.
In these unprecedented and uncertain times, remember the African proverb “It takes a village.” To ask for help reveals strength and fortitude. The more we advocate for ourselves and one another, the more we will prevail and shed the myth of infallibility.
Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.
It’s been more than a year since we came face to face with an unprecedented, unrelenting pandemic. Determined to overcome, determined to forge ahead, we worked tirelessly.
Hours upon hours, days upon days, months upon months. Hoping for recovery while facing the devastation of death. We were praised, and lauded as heroes as we pleaded for essential protective gear and urged our communities to think critically, act responsibly, and distance safely. From the cities to small towns, we answered the call. Leaving long-practiced specialties, reassigned from our practices and training, we worked together uncertain of the future, but committed to safeguarding our present. Through sacrifice we toiled, leaving our families to protect against contagion, wading through halls of the sick and fighting against the threat of death.
As days swept into months, the impact of isolation and economic deceleration yielded cracks on the surface. Pay cuts loomed, furloughs abounded, and distance-learning infiltrated the medical community. Yet, COVID-19 reigned, and with it came frustration, exhaustion, and emotional defeat. Despite racial reckonings, political turmoil, and massive protests, we worked tirelessly. We persevered.
Throughout 2020, the praise of “Health Care Heroes” rang out around the world. We saw images of medical professionals diligently working through the unthinkable with grace and humility, truly sacrificing for the greater good without complaint. Day after day, hour after hour, month after month. All the while, cracks were surfacing, expanding wider, and penetrating deeper. We were weary.
During a recent appointment with my primary care physician, she looked at me, her eyes brimming with earnest compassion, and said, “If you have suicidal thoughts, please let me know. That is my biggest worry with doctors.” I knowingly looked at her, keen in understanding as I recalled the stories. Doctors overwhelmed and uncertain, released by the abrupt completion of suicide.
Although broader government agencies may regulate and enforce, it is up to us to facilitate and comply. The pressure is immense, but our calling is strong – an unspoken agreement that begins with an oath.
As a psychiatrist, I am acutely aware of the warning signs associated with suicidality. Reading through the stories of loss and seeing the bewilderment and despair of the bereft, I once again wonder whether the pressure of medicine is worth the cost. How can we be “Health Care Heroes” if we fail to recognize the fragility that resides within ourselves? Moreover, how do we see beyond the illusion of invulnerability and accept that vulnerability is not a sign of weakness but a hallmark of strength and empathy? These are some of the issues I will be exploring in this new column, Myth of the Super Doctor.
Beginning at the beginning
Addressing these issues starts with training. As a new cohort of eager students enters medical/osteopathic school, the focus should lie not only on foundations of medicine and brute memorization of copious information but also on self-care, wellness checks, and group morale. The same emphasis placed upon patient care and advocacy must also be extended toward ensuring that the next generation of physicians will understand the importance of caring for themselves as much as they care for others.
In the same manner, past stereotypes of ruthless, cut-throat, competition must also evolve. Although the spirit of hard work and perseverance is essential, the manner it propagates is just as important. Aggressive questioning, myriad testing, rigid hierarchies, blind obedience, and ego inflation may separate the pack, but it also reinforces individualism and isolation. Students may shield their internal turmoil behind a mask. The mask of the Super Doctor.
However, as the pandemic has shown, even the most durable of masks will eventually fail. So how do we recognize and accept that help is needed? How do we access support? First, it is vital to acknowledge that there is no shame in asking for help. It is both surprising and reassuring that many of us have been there, an unspoken band of brothers and sisters. Second, remember the acronym for depressive symptoms SIGECAPS (sleep, interest, guilt, energy, concentration, appetite, psychomotor, suicide). Remember that these symptoms may develop gradually or feel sudden and overwhelming. Know that mood lability, tearfulness, and isolation may also be present but confused and disregarded as normal consequences of school, residency, or life as a physician. Third, recognize common behavioral changes associated with anxiety, such as irritability, avoidance, and physical symptoms, including headache, muscle aches, joint pain, GI discomfort, palpitations, and insomnia. Last, reach out to colleagues who have suddenly or gradually withdrawn. Schedule frequent check-ins for one another and do not be afraid to admit that you are human. There is no shame in vulnerability but there is bravery and strength.
If you are in school or residency training, reach out to health centers, training directors, supervisors, family and/or friends. Whether you are an early career physician or amid a decades-long career, connect with your peers, reach out to junior members, offer and accept support. Anonymous hotlines, listservs, email groups, virtual meetings, texts, and phone calls also provide opportunities for wellness checks, pep talks, or venting sessions. All are important. In the case where more specialized help is needed, contact your primary care physician, reach out to colleagues in mental health, contact the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800 273-8255. Know there is help; you are not alone.
In these unprecedented and uncertain times, remember the African proverb “It takes a village.” To ask for help reveals strength and fortitude. The more we advocate for ourselves and one another, the more we will prevail and shed the myth of infallibility.
Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.
Adult separation anxiety raises suicidality risk
Separation anxiety plays a substantial role in suicidality in patients with mood and anxiety disorders, new research suggests.
Results of a study that included 500 outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders showed adult separation anxiety disorder (ASAD) was more frequent in patients with suicidal thoughts versus those who did not have the disorder. In addition, depression and separation anxiety also significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk.
“This study indicates a substantial role of separation anxiety in predicting suicidal thoughts, both as state-related symptoms ... and as longitudinal dimension symptoms,” say the investigators, led by Stefano Pini, MD, of the department of clinical and experimental medicine, section of psychiatry, University of Pisa (Italy).
“ for reducing suicide risk,” they add.
The study was published in the March/April issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Frequently underdiagnosed
The authors describe a “close link between suicidal behaviors and interpersonal difficulties extending beyond the traditional approach of comprehending suicide as a phenomenon mainly related to depression.”
Previous research indicates that insecure adult attachment style might be associated with a greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and there might be an association between individual abnormal attachment sensitivity and suicide.
“Suicidal ideation or suicide attempts may be associated with disturbances in attachment, which may lead not only to a devastating experience of losing the feeling of interdependence and closeness but also to a rejection of life itself,” the authors suggest.
ASAD may be a “key factor” in understanding the relationship between individual attachment sensitivity to separation and suicidality.
An ASAD diagnosis was traditionally reserved for children and adolescents, but DSM-5 expanded the diagnosis to include adults over 18 years of age because research had “found a later onset to be common,” spanning the life course, even in the absence of a history of separation anxiety in childhood.
“Separation anxiety is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to manifest across the lifespan,” the authors note, adding that it is “frequently underdiagnosed.”
The relationship between ASAD and suicidality has not been explored extensively, so the researchers set out to examine the association.
The study included 509 consecutively recruited adult psychiatric outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders as a principle diagnosis.
Participants completed an array of scales, including item 3 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), which measures suicidality, as well as the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR), a questionnaire evaluating lifetime suicidal symptoms.
Three scales were used to measure separation anxiety disorder: The Structured Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms in Adulthood/Childhood (SCI-SAS-A/C); the Separation Anxiety Symptom Inventory (SASI); and the Adult Separation Anxiety Scale (ASA-27).
Waxing and waning
Of the total sample, 215 patients were diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder (mean age at onset 15 years). Of the total sample, 19.9% scored ≥ 1 on the HDRS item 3, indicating the presence of suicidality.
Patients with suicidal thoughts more frequently experienced ASAD, compared with those without suicidal thoughts (53.6% vs. 39.6%, respectively, P = .01).
“All measures of adult as well as childhood separation anxiety were significantly elevated in the group of patients with current suicidality, based on HDRS item 3,” the authors report.
Logistic regression found that ASAD, major depression, bipolar I, and bipolar II disorders all predicted suicidal thoughts.
A linear regression model found that depression (P = .001) and ASA-27 separation anxiety (P = .001) significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk, based on the MOODS-SR scale.
In addition, “mediation analysis showed that, besides a direct effect, there is also an indirect effect of depression severity on the MOODS-SR suicidality score through the ASA-27 score, indicating that separation anxiety may act as an important mediating factor in the relationship between depression and suicidality,” the authors state.
The authors observe that separation anxiety “is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to wax and wane across the lifespan and even to manifest for the first time during adulthood.”
Treatment target?
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Megan Rogers, PhD, postdoctoral research fellow, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, said the findings “point to symptoms of separation anxiety as a potential indicator of suicidal ideation, and should these findings be replicated and extended through longitudinal research, it suggests that symptoms of separation anxiety may be a relevant treatment target in certain populations to mitigate suicide risk.”
Dr. Rogers, who is the student division director at the American Association of Suicidology and was not involved with the study, said she thinks that studies of suicide have focused more on “individual symptoms of separation anxiety, such as excessive worry about loved ones or distress when anticipating separation from loved ones, rather than on separation anxiety as a categorical diagnosis.”
However, the study has an important take-home message for practicing clinicians, Dr. Rogers said. “In individuals with separation anxiety disorders, particularly those with comorbid mood conditions, it may be worth conducting a more thorough assessment of suicide risk, given the possibility of elevated suicidality in these patients.”
The study was supported in part by the German Research Foundation and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di la Spezia. The authors and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Separation anxiety plays a substantial role in suicidality in patients with mood and anxiety disorders, new research suggests.
Results of a study that included 500 outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders showed adult separation anxiety disorder (ASAD) was more frequent in patients with suicidal thoughts versus those who did not have the disorder. In addition, depression and separation anxiety also significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk.
“This study indicates a substantial role of separation anxiety in predicting suicidal thoughts, both as state-related symptoms ... and as longitudinal dimension symptoms,” say the investigators, led by Stefano Pini, MD, of the department of clinical and experimental medicine, section of psychiatry, University of Pisa (Italy).
“ for reducing suicide risk,” they add.
The study was published in the March/April issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Frequently underdiagnosed
The authors describe a “close link between suicidal behaviors and interpersonal difficulties extending beyond the traditional approach of comprehending suicide as a phenomenon mainly related to depression.”
Previous research indicates that insecure adult attachment style might be associated with a greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and there might be an association between individual abnormal attachment sensitivity and suicide.
“Suicidal ideation or suicide attempts may be associated with disturbances in attachment, which may lead not only to a devastating experience of losing the feeling of interdependence and closeness but also to a rejection of life itself,” the authors suggest.
ASAD may be a “key factor” in understanding the relationship between individual attachment sensitivity to separation and suicidality.
An ASAD diagnosis was traditionally reserved for children and adolescents, but DSM-5 expanded the diagnosis to include adults over 18 years of age because research had “found a later onset to be common,” spanning the life course, even in the absence of a history of separation anxiety in childhood.
“Separation anxiety is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to manifest across the lifespan,” the authors note, adding that it is “frequently underdiagnosed.”
The relationship between ASAD and suicidality has not been explored extensively, so the researchers set out to examine the association.
The study included 509 consecutively recruited adult psychiatric outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders as a principle diagnosis.
Participants completed an array of scales, including item 3 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), which measures suicidality, as well as the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR), a questionnaire evaluating lifetime suicidal symptoms.
Three scales were used to measure separation anxiety disorder: The Structured Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms in Adulthood/Childhood (SCI-SAS-A/C); the Separation Anxiety Symptom Inventory (SASI); and the Adult Separation Anxiety Scale (ASA-27).
Waxing and waning
Of the total sample, 215 patients were diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder (mean age at onset 15 years). Of the total sample, 19.9% scored ≥ 1 on the HDRS item 3, indicating the presence of suicidality.
Patients with suicidal thoughts more frequently experienced ASAD, compared with those without suicidal thoughts (53.6% vs. 39.6%, respectively, P = .01).
“All measures of adult as well as childhood separation anxiety were significantly elevated in the group of patients with current suicidality, based on HDRS item 3,” the authors report.
Logistic regression found that ASAD, major depression, bipolar I, and bipolar II disorders all predicted suicidal thoughts.
A linear regression model found that depression (P = .001) and ASA-27 separation anxiety (P = .001) significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk, based on the MOODS-SR scale.
In addition, “mediation analysis showed that, besides a direct effect, there is also an indirect effect of depression severity on the MOODS-SR suicidality score through the ASA-27 score, indicating that separation anxiety may act as an important mediating factor in the relationship between depression and suicidality,” the authors state.
The authors observe that separation anxiety “is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to wax and wane across the lifespan and even to manifest for the first time during adulthood.”
Treatment target?
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Megan Rogers, PhD, postdoctoral research fellow, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, said the findings “point to symptoms of separation anxiety as a potential indicator of suicidal ideation, and should these findings be replicated and extended through longitudinal research, it suggests that symptoms of separation anxiety may be a relevant treatment target in certain populations to mitigate suicide risk.”
Dr. Rogers, who is the student division director at the American Association of Suicidology and was not involved with the study, said she thinks that studies of suicide have focused more on “individual symptoms of separation anxiety, such as excessive worry about loved ones or distress when anticipating separation from loved ones, rather than on separation anxiety as a categorical diagnosis.”
However, the study has an important take-home message for practicing clinicians, Dr. Rogers said. “In individuals with separation anxiety disorders, particularly those with comorbid mood conditions, it may be worth conducting a more thorough assessment of suicide risk, given the possibility of elevated suicidality in these patients.”
The study was supported in part by the German Research Foundation and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di la Spezia. The authors and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Separation anxiety plays a substantial role in suicidality in patients with mood and anxiety disorders, new research suggests.
Results of a study that included 500 outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders showed adult separation anxiety disorder (ASAD) was more frequent in patients with suicidal thoughts versus those who did not have the disorder. In addition, depression and separation anxiety also significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk.
“This study indicates a substantial role of separation anxiety in predicting suicidal thoughts, both as state-related symptoms ... and as longitudinal dimension symptoms,” say the investigators, led by Stefano Pini, MD, of the department of clinical and experimental medicine, section of psychiatry, University of Pisa (Italy).
“ for reducing suicide risk,” they add.
The study was published in the March/April issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Frequently underdiagnosed
The authors describe a “close link between suicidal behaviors and interpersonal difficulties extending beyond the traditional approach of comprehending suicide as a phenomenon mainly related to depression.”
Previous research indicates that insecure adult attachment style might be associated with a greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and there might be an association between individual abnormal attachment sensitivity and suicide.
“Suicidal ideation or suicide attempts may be associated with disturbances in attachment, which may lead not only to a devastating experience of losing the feeling of interdependence and closeness but also to a rejection of life itself,” the authors suggest.
ASAD may be a “key factor” in understanding the relationship between individual attachment sensitivity to separation and suicidality.
An ASAD diagnosis was traditionally reserved for children and adolescents, but DSM-5 expanded the diagnosis to include adults over 18 years of age because research had “found a later onset to be common,” spanning the life course, even in the absence of a history of separation anxiety in childhood.
“Separation anxiety is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to manifest across the lifespan,” the authors note, adding that it is “frequently underdiagnosed.”
The relationship between ASAD and suicidality has not been explored extensively, so the researchers set out to examine the association.
The study included 509 consecutively recruited adult psychiatric outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders as a principle diagnosis.
Participants completed an array of scales, including item 3 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), which measures suicidality, as well as the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR), a questionnaire evaluating lifetime suicidal symptoms.
Three scales were used to measure separation anxiety disorder: The Structured Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms in Adulthood/Childhood (SCI-SAS-A/C); the Separation Anxiety Symptom Inventory (SASI); and the Adult Separation Anxiety Scale (ASA-27).
Waxing and waning
Of the total sample, 215 patients were diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder (mean age at onset 15 years). Of the total sample, 19.9% scored ≥ 1 on the HDRS item 3, indicating the presence of suicidality.
Patients with suicidal thoughts more frequently experienced ASAD, compared with those without suicidal thoughts (53.6% vs. 39.6%, respectively, P = .01).
“All measures of adult as well as childhood separation anxiety were significantly elevated in the group of patients with current suicidality, based on HDRS item 3,” the authors report.
Logistic regression found that ASAD, major depression, bipolar I, and bipolar II disorders all predicted suicidal thoughts.
A linear regression model found that depression (P = .001) and ASA-27 separation anxiety (P = .001) significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk, based on the MOODS-SR scale.
In addition, “mediation analysis showed that, besides a direct effect, there is also an indirect effect of depression severity on the MOODS-SR suicidality score through the ASA-27 score, indicating that separation anxiety may act as an important mediating factor in the relationship between depression and suicidality,” the authors state.
The authors observe that separation anxiety “is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to wax and wane across the lifespan and even to manifest for the first time during adulthood.”
Treatment target?
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Megan Rogers, PhD, postdoctoral research fellow, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, said the findings “point to symptoms of separation anxiety as a potential indicator of suicidal ideation, and should these findings be replicated and extended through longitudinal research, it suggests that symptoms of separation anxiety may be a relevant treatment target in certain populations to mitigate suicide risk.”
Dr. Rogers, who is the student division director at the American Association of Suicidology and was not involved with the study, said she thinks that studies of suicide have focused more on “individual symptoms of separation anxiety, such as excessive worry about loved ones or distress when anticipating separation from loved ones, rather than on separation anxiety as a categorical diagnosis.”
However, the study has an important take-home message for practicing clinicians, Dr. Rogers said. “In individuals with separation anxiety disorders, particularly those with comorbid mood conditions, it may be worth conducting a more thorough assessment of suicide risk, given the possibility of elevated suicidality in these patients.”
The study was supported in part by the German Research Foundation and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di la Spezia. The authors and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.