Depression

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Hypochondriasis is linked to an 84% higher risk for death for those with the disorder and a fourfold increased risk for suicide, new population-based data show. These findings, investigators noted, suggest the need for more clinical screening and treatment of hypochondriasis, also known as health anxiety disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used several Swedish population-based registers to identify people who received a diagnosis of hypochondriasis between January 1997 and December 2020.
• Each individual diagnosed with hypochondriasis (n = 4129; 2342 women; median 34.5 years at diagnosis) was age- and sex-matched with 10 individuals without the disorder (n = 41,290).
• For those who died during the study period, cause of death was categorized as natural (neoplasms; diseases of the nervous system, circulatory system, or respiratory system) or unnatural (primarily suicide).
• Investigators age- and sex-matched 4129 individuals with hypochondriasis to 41,290 individuals without hypochondriasis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with hypochondriasis had an 84% higher risk for all-cause mortality during the study period than those without it (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.60-2.10), including a higher risk for both natural (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.38-1.85) and unnatural death (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.61-3.68).
• The majority of individuals with hypochondriasis were diagnosed with at least one additional psychiatric disorder (primarily anxiety-related and depressive disorders) vs the group without hypochondriasis (86% vs 20%, respectively; P < .001).
• The risk for suicide — the most common unnatural cause of death — was four times higher in those with hypochondriasis (aHR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.44-7.03).
• When investigators limited analyses to include only psychiatric comorbidities recorded before the first diagnosis of hypochondriasis, suicide risk was attenuated but remained statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, these findings illustrate a paradox, whereby individuals with hypochondriasis have an increased risk for death despite their pervasive fears of illness and death. In this study, most deaths could be classified as potentially preventable. Dismissing these individuals’ somatic symptoms as imaginary may have dire consequences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

David Mataix-Cols, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on December 13, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Hypochondriasis is thought to be underdiagnosed in Sweden, with only approximately 4000 cases registered within two decades. Study investigators also noted that they did not obtain data from primary care, the setting where the majority of hypochondriasis cases are diagnosed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Stockholm; the Swedish Society of Medicine, Stockholm; and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm. Dr. Mataix-Cols reported receiving personal fees from UpToDate Inc. Author disclosures can be found in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypochondriasis is linked to an 84% higher risk for death for those with the disorder and a fourfold increased risk for suicide, new population-based data show. These findings, investigators noted, suggest the need for more clinical screening and treatment of hypochondriasis, also known as health anxiety disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used several Swedish population-based registers to identify people who received a diagnosis of hypochondriasis between January 1997 and December 2020.
• Each individual diagnosed with hypochondriasis (n = 4129; 2342 women; median 34.5 years at diagnosis) was age- and sex-matched with 10 individuals without the disorder (n = 41,290).
• For those who died during the study period, cause of death was categorized as natural (neoplasms; diseases of the nervous system, circulatory system, or respiratory system) or unnatural (primarily suicide).
• Investigators age- and sex-matched 4129 individuals with hypochondriasis to 41,290 individuals without hypochondriasis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with hypochondriasis had an 84% higher risk for all-cause mortality during the study period than those without it (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.60-2.10), including a higher risk for both natural (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.38-1.85) and unnatural death (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.61-3.68).
• The majority of individuals with hypochondriasis were diagnosed with at least one additional psychiatric disorder (primarily anxiety-related and depressive disorders) vs the group without hypochondriasis (86% vs 20%, respectively; P < .001).
• The risk for suicide — the most common unnatural cause of death — was four times higher in those with hypochondriasis (aHR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.44-7.03).
• When investigators limited analyses to include only psychiatric comorbidities recorded before the first diagnosis of hypochondriasis, suicide risk was attenuated but remained statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, these findings illustrate a paradox, whereby individuals with hypochondriasis have an increased risk for death despite their pervasive fears of illness and death. In this study, most deaths could be classified as potentially preventable. Dismissing these individuals’ somatic symptoms as imaginary may have dire consequences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

David Mataix-Cols, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on December 13, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Hypochondriasis is thought to be underdiagnosed in Sweden, with only approximately 4000 cases registered within two decades. Study investigators also noted that they did not obtain data from primary care, the setting where the majority of hypochondriasis cases are diagnosed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Stockholm; the Swedish Society of Medicine, Stockholm; and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm. Dr. Mataix-Cols reported receiving personal fees from UpToDate Inc. Author disclosures can be found in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypochondriasis is linked to an 84% higher risk for death for those with the disorder and a fourfold increased risk for suicide, new population-based data show. These findings, investigators noted, suggest the need for more clinical screening and treatment of hypochondriasis, also known as health anxiety disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used several Swedish population-based registers to identify people who received a diagnosis of hypochondriasis between January 1997 and December 2020.
• Each individual diagnosed with hypochondriasis (n = 4129; 2342 women; median 34.5 years at diagnosis) was age- and sex-matched with 10 individuals without the disorder (n = 41,290).
• For those who died during the study period, cause of death was categorized as natural (neoplasms; diseases of the nervous system, circulatory system, or respiratory system) or unnatural (primarily suicide).
• Investigators age- and sex-matched 4129 individuals with hypochondriasis to 41,290 individuals without hypochondriasis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with hypochondriasis had an 84% higher risk for all-cause mortality during the study period than those without it (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.60-2.10), including a higher risk for both natural (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.38-1.85) and unnatural death (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.61-3.68).
• The majority of individuals with hypochondriasis were diagnosed with at least one additional psychiatric disorder (primarily anxiety-related and depressive disorders) vs the group without hypochondriasis (86% vs 20%, respectively; P < .001).
• The risk for suicide — the most common unnatural cause of death — was four times higher in those with hypochondriasis (aHR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.44-7.03).
• When investigators limited analyses to include only psychiatric comorbidities recorded before the first diagnosis of hypochondriasis, suicide risk was attenuated but remained statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, these findings illustrate a paradox, whereby individuals with hypochondriasis have an increased risk for death despite their pervasive fears of illness and death. In this study, most deaths could be classified as potentially preventable. Dismissing these individuals’ somatic symptoms as imaginary may have dire consequences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

David Mataix-Cols, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on December 13, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Hypochondriasis is thought to be underdiagnosed in Sweden, with only approximately 4000 cases registered within two decades. Study investigators also noted that they did not obtain data from primary care, the setting where the majority of hypochondriasis cases are diagnosed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Stockholm; the Swedish Society of Medicine, Stockholm; and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm. Dr. Mataix-Cols reported receiving personal fees from UpToDate Inc. Author disclosures can be found in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

TOPLINE:

Light therapy leads to significant improvement in several sleep measures and helps alleviate depression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a meta-analysis of 15 high-quality trials shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• This meta-analysis included 15 randomized controlled trials involving 598 patients with mild to moderate AD.
• The included trials were written in English, published between 2005 and 2022, and performed in seven countries. A fixed-effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Light therapy significantly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference [MD], −2.42; P < .00001), increased interdaily stability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), and reduced intradaily variability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), indicating better sleep quality.
• Light therapy reduced agitation (MD, −3.97; P < .00001), depression (MD, −2.55; P < .00001), and caregiver burden (MD, −3.57; P < .00001).
• Light therapy also had a significant advantage over usual care in reducing the severity of psychobehavioral symptoms as assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD, −3.07; P < .00001).
• Light therapy had no statistically significant effect on improving cognitive function as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings, combined with its low side-effects, suggest the role of light therapy as a promising treatment for AD. Although light therapy has fewer side effects than pharmacological treatment, adverse behavioral outcomes in patients due to bright light exposure should be considered,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Lili Zang and colleagues from Weifang Medical University School of Nursing, Shandong Province, China, was published online on December 6, 2023, in PLOS One.

LIMITATIONS:

The types and degrees of dementia in the included studies were inconsistent, potentially affecting the outcome indicators. Some articles did not clearly describe their randomization and allocation concealment methods, indicating possible bias in these studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China. The authors declared no competing interests.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Light therapy leads to significant improvement in several sleep measures and helps alleviate depression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a meta-analysis of 15 high-quality trials shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• This meta-analysis included 15 randomized controlled trials involving 598 patients with mild to moderate AD.
• The included trials were written in English, published between 2005 and 2022, and performed in seven countries. A fixed-effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Light therapy significantly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference [MD], −2.42; P < .00001), increased interdaily stability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), and reduced intradaily variability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), indicating better sleep quality.
• Light therapy reduced agitation (MD, −3.97; P < .00001), depression (MD, −2.55; P < .00001), and caregiver burden (MD, −3.57; P < .00001).
• Light therapy also had a significant advantage over usual care in reducing the severity of psychobehavioral symptoms as assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD, −3.07; P < .00001).
• Light therapy had no statistically significant effect on improving cognitive function as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings, combined with its low side-effects, suggest the role of light therapy as a promising treatment for AD. Although light therapy has fewer side effects than pharmacological treatment, adverse behavioral outcomes in patients due to bright light exposure should be considered,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Lili Zang and colleagues from Weifang Medical University School of Nursing, Shandong Province, China, was published online on December 6, 2023, in PLOS One.

LIMITATIONS:

The types and degrees of dementia in the included studies were inconsistent, potentially affecting the outcome indicators. Some articles did not clearly describe their randomization and allocation concealment methods, indicating possible bias in these studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China. The authors declared no competing interests.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Light therapy leads to significant improvement in several sleep measures and helps alleviate depression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a meta-analysis of 15 high-quality trials shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• This meta-analysis included 15 randomized controlled trials involving 598 patients with mild to moderate AD.
• The included trials were written in English, published between 2005 and 2022, and performed in seven countries. A fixed-effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Light therapy significantly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference [MD], −2.42; P < .00001), increased interdaily stability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), and reduced intradaily variability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), indicating better sleep quality.
• Light therapy reduced agitation (MD, −3.97; P < .00001), depression (MD, −2.55; P < .00001), and caregiver burden (MD, −3.57; P < .00001).
• Light therapy also had a significant advantage over usual care in reducing the severity of psychobehavioral symptoms as assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD, −3.07; P < .00001).
• Light therapy had no statistically significant effect on improving cognitive function as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings, combined with its low side-effects, suggest the role of light therapy as a promising treatment for AD. Although light therapy has fewer side effects than pharmacological treatment, adverse behavioral outcomes in patients due to bright light exposure should be considered,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Lili Zang and colleagues from Weifang Medical University School of Nursing, Shandong Province, China, was published online on December 6, 2023, in PLOS One.

LIMITATIONS:

The types and degrees of dementia in the included studies were inconsistent, potentially affecting the outcome indicators. Some articles did not clearly describe their randomization and allocation concealment methods, indicating possible bias in these studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China. The authors declared no competing interests.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.