Major Depressive Disorder

For those outside the medical profession, it took a global pandemic to finally understand how pervasive distress and suicide are among medical professionals, particularly surgeons.

For James Harrop, MD, it was made real years earlier by a colleague he’d trained alongside and worked with for decades — “one of the best surgeons I’ve ever seen” who, one day, just wasn’t there.

Lost in his own work, it wasn’t until Dr. Harrop, a professor of neurological and orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, read an article in The New England Journal of Medicine and realized his friend Michael Weinstein, MD, MPH, had been profoundly depressed for years and was hospitalized for his own safety.

Dr. Weinstein recovered and later gave grand rounds at Thomas Jefferson University, where he is an associate professor of surgery in the Acute Care Surgery Division. But the story stuck with Dr. Harrop.

“I said to Mike afterward, I’ve known you for 20 years and, retrospectively, going back, I never saw a single sign that you were depressed, sad, or had any issues, and he said to me ‘that’s because I did everything I could to make sure no one knew I had a problem,’ ” Dr. Harrop said during a talk on physician suicide on May 4 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“And that scared me because we need to help these people, we need to identify who they are.”

Surgeons at Greater Risk

Studies have reported that suicide and suicidal ideation are nearly twice as common among physicians, compared with among the general population. Among 9175 physicians surveyed in the 2023 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 9% had considered suicide, and 1% had attempted it. The average for US adults is 4.9% and 0.5%, respectively.

Surgeons are at particularly high risk. A 2011 survey of 7905 US surgeons found that 1 in 16 (6.3%) had considered suicide in the previous year. A post-pandemic survey of more than 600 surgeons and surgical trainees reported that one in seven had suicidal ideation.

It’s often estimated that between 300 and 400 physicians die by suicide each year in the United States, but exact numbers are not known. Recent updated estimates from the National Violent Death Reporting System put the number at 119 physician suicides annually.

Notably, that’s no better than data reported more than 50 years ago in the landmark policy paper The Sick Physician: Impairment by Psychiatric Disorders, Including Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. It sounded the alarm on poor mental health in physicians and reported that 100 doctors died by suicide annually — the equivalent of the average medical school graduating class at the time.

“If I take my med school class and double it, that’s how many physicians die each year,” Dr. Harrop said. “And here’s the bad news, it starts in medical school.”

Research shows higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in medical students and residents than in other graduates, with rates varying by stage of training, he noted.

In a multischool study, 12% of medical students and residents had probable major depression, 9.2% mild/moderate depression, and suicidal ideation jumped from 6.6% in the first year of medical school to 9.4% in year 4.

A recent AANS survey of 346 neurosurgery residents revealed 67% had burnout, and 41% seriously considered quitting. Burnout rose to a high of 76% in the second year and decreased to 49% and 54% in years 3 and 4, respectively.

Inadequate operating room exposure, hostile faculty, and stressors outside work were tied to burnout, whereas mentorship was linked to a threefold lower likelihood of burnout.

Notably, a 2019 study conservatively estimated that the annual cost of burnout-related physician turnover and reduced clinical hours was $4.6 billion nationally and $7600 per employed physician for an organization.

“We need to be kinder to each other, to look out for each other, and to talk to each other,” Dr. Harrop told conference attendees.

‘Death by a 1000 Cuts’

A host of factors are associated with physician suicide including long work hours, delayed gratification, difficulty balancing work and home life, changing healthcare systems, lawsuits, and the unique ability to prescribe medications, said Dr. Harrop.

“In my life, I think of it as death by 1000 cuts. Every day I come in, you’ve got another person attacking you,” he said, referencing Death by 1000 Cuts: Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021.

Dr. Harrop told this news organization that talking with numerous experts in this field has made him appreciate that anyone is at a risk for suicide.

“The problem is an overload of external resources crushing your existence to the point that you become paralyzed and make the irrational thought that the best solution is to end your life,” he said.

Ann Stroink, MD, immediate past president of the AANS, said in an interview that one potential trigger for burnout is the current shortage of neurosurgeons in the United States, which has led to increased workloads and potential sleep deprivation among existing neurosurgeons.

“To address this critical issue, we’ve been advocating through legislative channels for additional Medicare[-funded] slots” to train more neurosurgeons, she said. “It’s imperative that we take proactive steps to ensure that our healthcare system can sustainably meet the needs of patients, while also supporting the well-being of our neurosurgical professionals.”

The AANS is also advocating for decreased regulatory burdens associated with Medicare and insurance coverage, such as prior authorization, to help alleviate the administrative burdens that often contribute to burnout among its members, Dr. Stroink said.

A Model for Suicide Prevention

Dr. Harrop emphasized that suicide is preventable and that there is “some good news.” Turning to another high-risk profession, he noted that the US Air Force was able to reduce its suicide rate by 42.7% between 1994 and 1998 by doing three basic things.

The agency established a central surveillance database, restructured prevention services, and, more importantly, began conducting annual suicide prevention and awareness training, using gatekeepers to channel at-risk personnel to appropriate agencies and performing mental health questionnaires at enrollment and annually.

Similarly, education, screening, and access to mental health treatment are core recommendations for a national response to depression and suicide in physician trainees, said Dr. Harrop, who noted that his own hospital has started using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item for its staff.

Asked by this news organization how much progress has been made since The Sick Physician report, Dr. Harrop said, “we are probably doing worse” in terms of the number of physician suicides, but “on a positive note, we are better with resources and acknowledgment that a problem exists.”

He noted that the AANS, which has published a physician burnout series on its Neurosurgery Blog, has shown great interest in this topic and is working to spread the word to help neurosurgeons. “My simple talk has led to me being approached by numerous people and healthcare organizations on how to further focus resources and prevention of this problem.”

Asked the one thing he would tell his friend, Michael Weinstein, a fellow surgeon, or trainee who’s struggling, Dr. Harrop said, “I am here for you, and we will get over these temporary problems, which are not significant in the big picture of what you mean to the world.”

Dr. Harrop reported serving as an adviser for Ethicon and Spiderwort.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For those outside the medical profession, it took a global pandemic to finally understand how pervasive distress and suicide are among medical professionals, particularly surgeons.

For James Harrop, MD, it was made real years earlier by a colleague he’d trained alongside and worked with for decades — “one of the best surgeons I’ve ever seen” who, one day, just wasn’t there.

Lost in his own work, it wasn’t until Dr. Harrop, a professor of neurological and orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, read an article in The New England Journal of Medicine and realized his friend Michael Weinstein, MD, MPH, had been profoundly depressed for years and was hospitalized for his own safety.

Dr. Weinstein recovered and later gave grand rounds at Thomas Jefferson University, where he is an associate professor of surgery in the Acute Care Surgery Division. But the story stuck with Dr. Harrop.

“I said to Mike afterward, I’ve known you for 20 years and, retrospectively, going back, I never saw a single sign that you were depressed, sad, or had any issues, and he said to me ‘that’s because I did everything I could to make sure no one knew I had a problem,’ ” Dr. Harrop said during a talk on physician suicide on May 4 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“And that scared me because we need to help these people, we need to identify who they are.”

Surgeons at Greater Risk

Studies have reported that suicide and suicidal ideation are nearly twice as common among physicians, compared with among the general population. Among 9175 physicians surveyed in the 2023 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 9% had considered suicide, and 1% had attempted it. The average for US adults is 4.9% and 0.5%, respectively.

Surgeons are at particularly high risk. A 2011 survey of 7905 US surgeons found that 1 in 16 (6.3%) had considered suicide in the previous year. A post-pandemic survey of more than 600 surgeons and surgical trainees reported that one in seven had suicidal ideation.

It’s often estimated that between 300 and 400 physicians die by suicide each year in the United States, but exact numbers are not known. Recent updated estimates from the National Violent Death Reporting System put the number at 119 physician suicides annually.

Notably, that’s no better than data reported more than 50 years ago in the landmark policy paper The Sick Physician: Impairment by Psychiatric Disorders, Including Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. It sounded the alarm on poor mental health in physicians and reported that 100 doctors died by suicide annually — the equivalent of the average medical school graduating class at the time.

“If I take my med school class and double it, that’s how many physicians die each year,” Dr. Harrop said. “And here’s the bad news, it starts in medical school.”

Research shows higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in medical students and residents than in other graduates, with rates varying by stage of training, he noted.

In a multischool study, 12% of medical students and residents had probable major depression, 9.2% mild/moderate depression, and suicidal ideation jumped from 6.6% in the first year of medical school to 9.4% in year 4.

A recent AANS survey of 346 neurosurgery residents revealed 67% had burnout, and 41% seriously considered quitting. Burnout rose to a high of 76% in the second year and decreased to 49% and 54% in years 3 and 4, respectively.

Inadequate operating room exposure, hostile faculty, and stressors outside work were tied to burnout, whereas mentorship was linked to a threefold lower likelihood of burnout.

Notably, a 2019 study conservatively estimated that the annual cost of burnout-related physician turnover and reduced clinical hours was $4.6 billion nationally and $7600 per employed physician for an organization.

“We need to be kinder to each other, to look out for each other, and to talk to each other,” Dr. Harrop told conference attendees.

‘Death by a 1000 Cuts’

A host of factors are associated with physician suicide including long work hours, delayed gratification, difficulty balancing work and home life, changing healthcare systems, lawsuits, and the unique ability to prescribe medications, said Dr. Harrop.

“In my life, I think of it as death by 1000 cuts. Every day I come in, you’ve got another person attacking you,” he said, referencing Death by 1000 Cuts: Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021.

Dr. Harrop told this news organization that talking with numerous experts in this field has made him appreciate that anyone is at a risk for suicide.

“The problem is an overload of external resources crushing your existence to the point that you become paralyzed and make the irrational thought that the best solution is to end your life,” he said.

Ann Stroink, MD, immediate past president of the AANS, said in an interview that one potential trigger for burnout is the current shortage of neurosurgeons in the United States, which has led to increased workloads and potential sleep deprivation among existing neurosurgeons.

“To address this critical issue, we’ve been advocating through legislative channels for additional Medicare[-funded] slots” to train more neurosurgeons, she said. “It’s imperative that we take proactive steps to ensure that our healthcare system can sustainably meet the needs of patients, while also supporting the well-being of our neurosurgical professionals.”

The AANS is also advocating for decreased regulatory burdens associated with Medicare and insurance coverage, such as prior authorization, to help alleviate the administrative burdens that often contribute to burnout among its members, Dr. Stroink said.

A Model for Suicide Prevention

Dr. Harrop emphasized that suicide is preventable and that there is “some good news.” Turning to another high-risk profession, he noted that the US Air Force was able to reduce its suicide rate by 42.7% between 1994 and 1998 by doing three basic things.

The agency established a central surveillance database, restructured prevention services, and, more importantly, began conducting annual suicide prevention and awareness training, using gatekeepers to channel at-risk personnel to appropriate agencies and performing mental health questionnaires at enrollment and annually.

Similarly, education, screening, and access to mental health treatment are core recommendations for a national response to depression and suicide in physician trainees, said Dr. Harrop, who noted that his own hospital has started using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item for its staff.

Asked by this news organization how much progress has been made since The Sick Physician report, Dr. Harrop said, “we are probably doing worse” in terms of the number of physician suicides, but “on a positive note, we are better with resources and acknowledgment that a problem exists.”

He noted that the AANS, which has published a physician burnout series on its Neurosurgery Blog, has shown great interest in this topic and is working to spread the word to help neurosurgeons. “My simple talk has led to me being approached by numerous people and healthcare organizations on how to further focus resources and prevention of this problem.”

Asked the one thing he would tell his friend, Michael Weinstein, a fellow surgeon, or trainee who’s struggling, Dr. Harrop said, “I am here for you, and we will get over these temporary problems, which are not significant in the big picture of what you mean to the world.”

Dr. Harrop reported serving as an adviser for Ethicon and Spiderwort.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For those outside the medical profession, it took a global pandemic to finally understand how pervasive distress and suicide are among medical professionals, particularly surgeons.

For James Harrop, MD, it was made real years earlier by a colleague he’d trained alongside and worked with for decades — “one of the best surgeons I’ve ever seen” who, one day, just wasn’t there.

Lost in his own work, it wasn’t until Dr. Harrop, a professor of neurological and orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, read an article in The New England Journal of Medicine and realized his friend Michael Weinstein, MD, MPH, had been profoundly depressed for years and was hospitalized for his own safety.

Dr. Weinstein recovered and later gave grand rounds at Thomas Jefferson University, where he is an associate professor of surgery in the Acute Care Surgery Division. But the story stuck with Dr. Harrop.

“I said to Mike afterward, I’ve known you for 20 years and, retrospectively, going back, I never saw a single sign that you were depressed, sad, or had any issues, and he said to me ‘that’s because I did everything I could to make sure no one knew I had a problem,’ ” Dr. Harrop said during a talk on physician suicide on May 4 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“And that scared me because we need to help these people, we need to identify who they are.”

Surgeons at Greater Risk

Studies have reported that suicide and suicidal ideation are nearly twice as common among physicians, compared with among the general population. Among 9175 physicians surveyed in the 2023 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 9% had considered suicide, and 1% had attempted it. The average for US adults is 4.9% and 0.5%, respectively.

Surgeons are at particularly high risk. A 2011 survey of 7905 US surgeons found that 1 in 16 (6.3%) had considered suicide in the previous year. A post-pandemic survey of more than 600 surgeons and surgical trainees reported that one in seven had suicidal ideation.

It’s often estimated that between 300 and 400 physicians die by suicide each year in the United States, but exact numbers are not known. Recent updated estimates from the National Violent Death Reporting System put the number at 119 physician suicides annually.

Notably, that’s no better than data reported more than 50 years ago in the landmark policy paper The Sick Physician: Impairment by Psychiatric Disorders, Including Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. It sounded the alarm on poor mental health in physicians and reported that 100 doctors died by suicide annually — the equivalent of the average medical school graduating class at the time.

“If I take my med school class and double it, that’s how many physicians die each year,” Dr. Harrop said. “And here’s the bad news, it starts in medical school.”

Research shows higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in medical students and residents than in other graduates, with rates varying by stage of training, he noted.

In a multischool study, 12% of medical students and residents had probable major depression, 9.2% mild/moderate depression, and suicidal ideation jumped from 6.6% in the first year of medical school to 9.4% in year 4.

A recent AANS survey of 346 neurosurgery residents revealed 67% had burnout, and 41% seriously considered quitting. Burnout rose to a high of 76% in the second year and decreased to 49% and 54% in years 3 and 4, respectively.

Inadequate operating room exposure, hostile faculty, and stressors outside work were tied to burnout, whereas mentorship was linked to a threefold lower likelihood of burnout.

Notably, a 2019 study conservatively estimated that the annual cost of burnout-related physician turnover and reduced clinical hours was $4.6 billion nationally and $7600 per employed physician for an organization.

“We need to be kinder to each other, to look out for each other, and to talk to each other,” Dr. Harrop told conference attendees.

‘Death by a 1000 Cuts’

A host of factors are associated with physician suicide including long work hours, delayed gratification, difficulty balancing work and home life, changing healthcare systems, lawsuits, and the unique ability to prescribe medications, said Dr. Harrop.

“In my life, I think of it as death by 1000 cuts. Every day I come in, you’ve got another person attacking you,” he said, referencing Death by 1000 Cuts: Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021.

Dr. Harrop told this news organization that talking with numerous experts in this field has made him appreciate that anyone is at a risk for suicide.

“The problem is an overload of external resources crushing your existence to the point that you become paralyzed and make the irrational thought that the best solution is to end your life,” he said.

Ann Stroink, MD, immediate past president of the AANS, said in an interview that one potential trigger for burnout is the current shortage of neurosurgeons in the United States, which has led to increased workloads and potential sleep deprivation among existing neurosurgeons.

“To address this critical issue, we’ve been advocating through legislative channels for additional Medicare[-funded] slots” to train more neurosurgeons, she said. “It’s imperative that we take proactive steps to ensure that our healthcare system can sustainably meet the needs of patients, while also supporting the well-being of our neurosurgical professionals.”

The AANS is also advocating for decreased regulatory burdens associated with Medicare and insurance coverage, such as prior authorization, to help alleviate the administrative burdens that often contribute to burnout among its members, Dr. Stroink said.

A Model for Suicide Prevention

Dr. Harrop emphasized that suicide is preventable and that there is “some good news.” Turning to another high-risk profession, he noted that the US Air Force was able to reduce its suicide rate by 42.7% between 1994 and 1998 by doing three basic things.

The agency established a central surveillance database, restructured prevention services, and, more importantly, began conducting annual suicide prevention and awareness training, using gatekeepers to channel at-risk personnel to appropriate agencies and performing mental health questionnaires at enrollment and annually.

Similarly, education, screening, and access to mental health treatment are core recommendations for a national response to depression and suicide in physician trainees, said Dr. Harrop, who noted that his own hospital has started using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item for its staff.

Asked by this news organization how much progress has been made since The Sick Physician report, Dr. Harrop said, “we are probably doing worse” in terms of the number of physician suicides, but “on a positive note, we are better with resources and acknowledgment that a problem exists.”

He noted that the AANS, which has published a physician burnout series on its Neurosurgery Blog, has shown great interest in this topic and is working to spread the word to help neurosurgeons. “My simple talk has led to me being approached by numerous people and healthcare organizations on how to further focus resources and prevention of this problem.”

Asked the one thing he would tell his friend, Michael Weinstein, a fellow surgeon, or trainee who’s struggling, Dr. Harrop said, “I am here for you, and we will get over these temporary problems, which are not significant in the big picture of what you mean to the world.”

Dr. Harrop reported serving as an adviser for Ethicon and Spiderwort.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.

In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.

Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.

--

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies

Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press

Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.

In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.

Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.

--

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies

Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press

Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.

In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.

Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.

--

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies

Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if a walk in a green environment could reshape brains, recalibrate sense of time, and stave off mental health conditions? If the research trends are true, you might soon find yourself writing prescriptions of 20 minutes of nature per day.

Evidence for the health benefits of exposure to green spaces, like parks, open spaces, gardens, outdoor gyms, and woodland trails, has been mostly interventional and observational, but that has not stopped global recognition that these exposures are important. 

In the wake of the pandemic, the British government allocated more than £5 million to pandemic recovery efforts that specifically involved green spaces. Since then, it has committed even more funding toward an expansive social prescribing program that connects patients to “link workers” who determine personal care needs and facilitate community and volunteer-based interventions. These can include group walking and volunteering to help out in community gardens or conservation efforts. Similar green programs can be found in Japan, where shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) was recently adopted as a national health strategy, and in the United States and Canada.

“Disconnection from nature is a major part of the health problems that we have on this planet,” said William Bird, a UK-based general practitioner, green prescriber, and CEO of Intelligent Health, which is geared toward building healthy, active, and connected communities. Dr. Bird received the prestigious Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2010 for services related to physical activity and health. 

“Our brains are designed to connect to nature ... and we haven’t lost that instinct,” he explained. “Once we are with birdsong and water flowing and greenery, cortisol levels drop, our central vagus nerve improves, our fight and flight [response] disappears, and we start to be more receptive to other people.” 
 

Shifting Time Perception and Health

Ricardo A. Correia, PhD, a biologist and researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said he believed that the mechanism for at least some of these outcomes might be differences in how time is perceived. In a perspective that appeared in March in People and Nature, Dr. Correia explored how the “services” that nature provides shift time perceptions and, in turn, regulate overall well-being. 

“I reached the realization that there was some evidence for the shift in some of the dimensions that we use to make sense of time in urban vs natural environments,” he told this news organization. 

Dr. Correia explained that human time perception facilitates understanding cause and effect, so we can act in a way that allows us to survive. 

“Time perception in humans is really complex and multifaceted,” he said. “The way that we make sense of time is not directly attached to any sensory organ, but rather goes through a range of cognitive, emotional, and bodily processes, all of which vary from person to person.” 

Dr. Correia pointed to evidence showing that time perception is shorter in urban environments and longer in natural ones. This, in turn, influences attention and attention restoration. “When we live in cities, we are exposed to similar sorts of demanding environments, increased time pressures, less time for oneself and for recreational purposes,” he said. “Ever-mounting pressure on daily demands plus processes we use to make sense of time, especially attention, means that we pay a cognitive toll.”

Dr. Correia posits that it might be possible to recalibrate time perception, but only by breaking the cycle of exposure. 

“If we are always exposed to fast-paced lifestyles, we become attuned to them and get caught up in an endless loop.” This cycle can be broken, Dr. Correia explained, by increasing exposure to natural environments. This leads to positive emotions, a sense of being in the present, and a heightened sense of mindfulness, all of which help mitigate the physical and mental health outcomes commonly associated with time scarcity. 
 

Brain-Mental Health Benefits

To date, there is quite a bit of research exploring the impacts of exposure to nature on the brain. For example, data have shown that adolescents raised exclusively in rural environments have a larger hippocampus and better spatial processing than children exclusively raised in cities. Other research demonstrated that spending just an hour in the forest led to a decline in amygdala activity in adults, whereas it remained stable after walking in an urban setting, underscoring the salutogenic effects on brain regions related to stress. There is also evidence from a 10-year longitudinal study of more than 2 million Welsh adults that highlights the value of proximity to green or blue (eg, lakes and rivers) spaces and common mental health conditions, with every additional 360 meters to the nearest green or blue space associated with 10% greater odds of anxiety and depression.

Dr. Bird said there has been a massive sea change in attitudes among general practitioners, who have come around to embracing the concept of nature as medicine. This shift among peers, who teased him in the 1990s about his green walking and conservation prescriptions, portends a bandwagon of epic proportions that could benefit patients. He said that he was especially hopeful that green prescriptions will become mainstream in certain conditions, especially those like depression and anxiety that are resistant to medication.

But Dr. Bird cautions that primary care professionals need to be mindful. “Patients need to know that it’s real science, otherwise they’ll think that they’re being pawned off or dismissed,” he said. “I try to put real evidence behind it and explain that there’s no contraindication. The main thing is to start where patients are, what they’re feeling, and what they need. Some people just don’t like nature,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if a walk in a green environment could reshape brains, recalibrate sense of time, and stave off mental health conditions? If the research trends are true, you might soon find yourself writing prescriptions of 20 minutes of nature per day.

Evidence for the health benefits of exposure to green spaces, like parks, open spaces, gardens, outdoor gyms, and woodland trails, has been mostly interventional and observational, but that has not stopped global recognition that these exposures are important. 

In the wake of the pandemic, the British government allocated more than £5 million to pandemic recovery efforts that specifically involved green spaces. Since then, it has committed even more funding toward an expansive social prescribing program that connects patients to “link workers” who determine personal care needs and facilitate community and volunteer-based interventions. These can include group walking and volunteering to help out in community gardens or conservation efforts. Similar green programs can be found in Japan, where shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) was recently adopted as a national health strategy, and in the United States and Canada.

“Disconnection from nature is a major part of the health problems that we have on this planet,” said William Bird, a UK-based general practitioner, green prescriber, and CEO of Intelligent Health, which is geared toward building healthy, active, and connected communities. Dr. Bird received the prestigious Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2010 for services related to physical activity and health. 

“Our brains are designed to connect to nature ... and we haven’t lost that instinct,” he explained. “Once we are with birdsong and water flowing and greenery, cortisol levels drop, our central vagus nerve improves, our fight and flight [response] disappears, and we start to be more receptive to other people.” 
 

Shifting Time Perception and Health

Ricardo A. Correia, PhD, a biologist and researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said he believed that the mechanism for at least some of these outcomes might be differences in how time is perceived. In a perspective that appeared in March in People and Nature, Dr. Correia explored how the “services” that nature provides shift time perceptions and, in turn, regulate overall well-being. 

“I reached the realization that there was some evidence for the shift in some of the dimensions that we use to make sense of time in urban vs natural environments,” he told this news organization. 

Dr. Correia explained that human time perception facilitates understanding cause and effect, so we can act in a way that allows us to survive. 

“Time perception in humans is really complex and multifaceted,” he said. “The way that we make sense of time is not directly attached to any sensory organ, but rather goes through a range of cognitive, emotional, and bodily processes, all of which vary from person to person.” 

Dr. Correia pointed to evidence showing that time perception is shorter in urban environments and longer in natural ones. This, in turn, influences attention and attention restoration. “When we live in cities, we are exposed to similar sorts of demanding environments, increased time pressures, less time for oneself and for recreational purposes,” he said. “Ever-mounting pressure on daily demands plus processes we use to make sense of time, especially attention, means that we pay a cognitive toll.”

Dr. Correia posits that it might be possible to recalibrate time perception, but only by breaking the cycle of exposure. 

“If we are always exposed to fast-paced lifestyles, we become attuned to them and get caught up in an endless loop.” This cycle can be broken, Dr. Correia explained, by increasing exposure to natural environments. This leads to positive emotions, a sense of being in the present, and a heightened sense of mindfulness, all of which help mitigate the physical and mental health outcomes commonly associated with time scarcity. 
 

Brain-Mental Health Benefits

To date, there is quite a bit of research exploring the impacts of exposure to nature on the brain. For example, data have shown that adolescents raised exclusively in rural environments have a larger hippocampus and better spatial processing than children exclusively raised in cities. Other research demonstrated that spending just an hour in the forest led to a decline in amygdala activity in adults, whereas it remained stable after walking in an urban setting, underscoring the salutogenic effects on brain regions related to stress. There is also evidence from a 10-year longitudinal study of more than 2 million Welsh adults that highlights the value of proximity to green or blue (eg, lakes and rivers) spaces and common mental health conditions, with every additional 360 meters to the nearest green or blue space associated with 10% greater odds of anxiety and depression.

Dr. Bird said there has been a massive sea change in attitudes among general practitioners, who have come around to embracing the concept of nature as medicine. This shift among peers, who teased him in the 1990s about his green walking and conservation prescriptions, portends a bandwagon of epic proportions that could benefit patients. He said that he was especially hopeful that green prescriptions will become mainstream in certain conditions, especially those like depression and anxiety that are resistant to medication.

But Dr. Bird cautions that primary care professionals need to be mindful. “Patients need to know that it’s real science, otherwise they’ll think that they’re being pawned off or dismissed,” he said. “I try to put real evidence behind it and explain that there’s no contraindication. The main thing is to start where patients are, what they’re feeling, and what they need. Some people just don’t like nature,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if a walk in a green environment could reshape brains, recalibrate sense of time, and stave off mental health conditions? If the research trends are true, you might soon find yourself writing prescriptions of 20 minutes of nature per day.

Evidence for the health benefits of exposure to green spaces, like parks, open spaces, gardens, outdoor gyms, and woodland trails, has been mostly interventional and observational, but that has not stopped global recognition that these exposures are important. 

In the wake of the pandemic, the British government allocated more than £5 million to pandemic recovery efforts that specifically involved green spaces. Since then, it has committed even more funding toward an expansive social prescribing program that connects patients to “link workers” who determine personal care needs and facilitate community and volunteer-based interventions. These can include group walking and volunteering to help out in community gardens or conservation efforts. Similar green programs can be found in Japan, where shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) was recently adopted as a national health strategy, and in the United States and Canada.

“Disconnection from nature is a major part of the health problems that we have on this planet,” said William Bird, a UK-based general practitioner, green prescriber, and CEO of Intelligent Health, which is geared toward building healthy, active, and connected communities. Dr. Bird received the prestigious Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2010 for services related to physical activity and health. 

“Our brains are designed to connect to nature ... and we haven’t lost that instinct,” he explained. “Once we are with birdsong and water flowing and greenery, cortisol levels drop, our central vagus nerve improves, our fight and flight [response] disappears, and we start to be more receptive to other people.” 
 

Shifting Time Perception and Health

Ricardo A. Correia, PhD, a biologist and researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said he believed that the mechanism for at least some of these outcomes might be differences in how time is perceived. In a perspective that appeared in March in People and Nature, Dr. Correia explored how the “services” that nature provides shift time perceptions and, in turn, regulate overall well-being. 

“I reached the realization that there was some evidence for the shift in some of the dimensions that we use to make sense of time in urban vs natural environments,” he told this news organization. 

Dr. Correia explained that human time perception facilitates understanding cause and effect, so we can act in a way that allows us to survive. 

“Time perception in humans is really complex and multifaceted,” he said. “The way that we make sense of time is not directly attached to any sensory organ, but rather goes through a range of cognitive, emotional, and bodily processes, all of which vary from person to person.” 

Dr. Correia pointed to evidence showing that time perception is shorter in urban environments and longer in natural ones. This, in turn, influences attention and attention restoration. “When we live in cities, we are exposed to similar sorts of demanding environments, increased time pressures, less time for oneself and for recreational purposes,” he said. “Ever-mounting pressure on daily demands plus processes we use to make sense of time, especially attention, means that we pay a cognitive toll.”

Dr. Correia posits that it might be possible to recalibrate time perception, but only by breaking the cycle of exposure. 

“If we are always exposed to fast-paced lifestyles, we become attuned to them and get caught up in an endless loop.” This cycle can be broken, Dr. Correia explained, by increasing exposure to natural environments. This leads to positive emotions, a sense of being in the present, and a heightened sense of mindfulness, all of which help mitigate the physical and mental health outcomes commonly associated with time scarcity. 
 

Brain-Mental Health Benefits

To date, there is quite a bit of research exploring the impacts of exposure to nature on the brain. For example, data have shown that adolescents raised exclusively in rural environments have a larger hippocampus and better spatial processing than children exclusively raised in cities. Other research demonstrated that spending just an hour in the forest led to a decline in amygdala activity in adults, whereas it remained stable after walking in an urban setting, underscoring the salutogenic effects on brain regions related to stress. There is also evidence from a 10-year longitudinal study of more than 2 million Welsh adults that highlights the value of proximity to green or blue (eg, lakes and rivers) spaces and common mental health conditions, with every additional 360 meters to the nearest green or blue space associated with 10% greater odds of anxiety and depression.

Dr. Bird said there has been a massive sea change in attitudes among general practitioners, who have come around to embracing the concept of nature as medicine. This shift among peers, who teased him in the 1990s about his green walking and conservation prescriptions, portends a bandwagon of epic proportions that could benefit patients. He said that he was especially hopeful that green prescriptions will become mainstream in certain conditions, especially those like depression and anxiety that are resistant to medication.

But Dr. Bird cautions that primary care professionals need to be mindful. “Patients need to know that it’s real science, otherwise they’ll think that they’re being pawned off or dismissed,” he said. “I try to put real evidence behind it and explain that there’s no contraindication. The main thing is to start where patients are, what they’re feeling, and what they need. Some people just don’t like nature,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in identifying patients at risk for serious mental health issues, including suicidality. But the ever-increasing demands on their clinical time can hinder the ability to identify emotional distress in time to intervene. Can artificial intelligence (AI) help?

This news organization spoke with Tom Zaubler, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer of NeuroFlow, about how AI can improve the ability of primary care physicians and other clinicians to screen their patients for suicidal ideation and boost rates of treatment for mental health issues in their patients. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Question: How can AI help in suicide prevention and mental health screening in primary care?

Answer: Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of AI in mental health screening and suicide prevention. One method is natural language processing (NLP), which can analyze patients› journal entries for signs of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. This technology has shown promise in detecting suicidal ideation in patients who may not report such thoughts on traditional screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). AI can be part of an integrated approach to identify and provide support to individuals at risk for suicide or those without a psychiatric history but who may still be at risk.

Q: A recent study by [Maria] Oquendo and colleagues found that one fifth of patients who attempt suicide do not meet the criteria for a mental health disorder.

Improved screening is obviously important, but in some ways it’s not the most important part of the problem. The lack of accessibility to specialized mental health care is a critical obstacle to treating patients with acute psychiatric needs.

How can primary care doctors effectively connect patients with mental health support, given the scarcity of mental health professionals?

A: Primary care doctors can leverage technology to extend mental health support. This includes using platforms for safety screening and providing patients with immediate access to local and national resources and digital interventions. Alerts can be sent to professionals within the practice or employed by technology companies to offer immediate support, including suicide safety planning and counseling. Users can hit a button to “Find a Therapist.” Also, if they acknowledge feelings of self-harm, these keywords are detected within the app by NLP. “Urgent alerts” are then sent to clinicians who are overseeing patient care. If someone is flagged, a social worker or member of a response services team intervenes and calls the person at risk to tailor care. These interventions do not always require a psychiatrist or masters-prepared clinician but can be effectively managed by trained paraprofessionals. These staff members can provide suicide safety planning and lethal-means-restriction counseling, and can assess the need for escalation of care.

Q: How is technology likely to manifest in physician practices in the near future to support mental health care?

A: Automated screening platforms for depression and anxiety, alerts for physicians when patients screen positively, and integration with collaborative care models are a few of the ways technology will become part of clinical practice. Additionally, advanced data analytics and predictive modeling using electronic health records and claims data will help identify high-risk patients. Technologies like voice recognition and machine learning can analyze patient journals and possibly, in the future, social media feeds to detect mental health issues. These technologies aim to extend and augment the capabilities of healthcare practices, improving the identification and management of patients at risk for mental health issues.

Q: Are these technologies as effective in pediatric populations, and are there any specific challenges?

A: Technologies for mental health screening and support are effective in pediatric populations, with certain age-specific considerations and legal restrictions on technology use. For adolescents and older children comfortable with technology, digital tools can significantly impact mental health care. For younger children, technology must facilitate information-gathering from various sources, including parents and teachers. Despite challenges, technology is crucial for early identification and intervention in pediatric mental health, potentially shortening the time to diagnosis and improving outcomes.

The statistics are horrifying. One third of adolescent girls have seriously thought about suicide over the past year; 13% attempt suicide. So there’s a need in the adolescent population and in the preadolescent population, too, because there’s an 8- to 10-year lag between onset of symptoms and diagnosis of mental illness. If we can shorten that lag, you see improved performance in schools; you see decreased truancy; you see greater economic achievement and so on. It makes such a profound difference. Not to mention it saves lives. So, yes, technology is critical in a pediatric population. It exists and it’s happening right now. There are challenges, but the goal can be met.

Q: A 2014 study found that 45% of people who completed suicide visited a primary care physician in the preceding month. And only 23% of people who attempt suicide have not seen a primary care physician within the past year. What does that say about the importance of screening at the primary care level?

A: The fact that a significant percentage of individuals who die by suicide have visited a primary care physician within a month or year prior to their death underscores the critical role of primary care in suicide prevention. This highlights the potential for primary care settings to identify and intervene with individuals at risk for suicide, making the case for the importance of integrating effective mental health screenings and support technologies in primary care practices.

Q: In other words, we’re not talking about a marginal benefit.

A: No, the potential benefit is huge. The United States Preventive Services Task Force did not endorse universal screening for suicide in its 2023 recommendations; they felt — and I accept that conclusion — there wasn›t enough evidence [at the time] to really support that recommendation. I think when you talk to a lot of suicide researchers, what you will hear is that providing suicide assessments as far upstream as possible is critical, especially when you start seeing more and more research showing that 20% of the population who die by suicide are not likely to have any psychiatric pathology at all. I believe the evidence base will soon support a recommendation for universal screening for adults. I believe it is especially important to screen for suicidal ideation in kids, given the high rates of suicide in this population.

Dr. Zaubler has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: chief medical officer, NeuroFlow.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in identifying patients at risk for serious mental health issues, including suicidality. But the ever-increasing demands on their clinical time can hinder the ability to identify emotional distress in time to intervene. Can artificial intelligence (AI) help?

This news organization spoke with Tom Zaubler, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer of NeuroFlow, about how AI can improve the ability of primary care physicians and other clinicians to screen their patients for suicidal ideation and boost rates of treatment for mental health issues in their patients. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Question: How can AI help in suicide prevention and mental health screening in primary care?

Answer: Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of AI in mental health screening and suicide prevention. One method is natural language processing (NLP), which can analyze patients› journal entries for signs of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. This technology has shown promise in detecting suicidal ideation in patients who may not report such thoughts on traditional screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). AI can be part of an integrated approach to identify and provide support to individuals at risk for suicide or those without a psychiatric history but who may still be at risk.

Q: A recent study by [Maria] Oquendo and colleagues found that one fifth of patients who attempt suicide do not meet the criteria for a mental health disorder.

Improved screening is obviously important, but in some ways it’s not the most important part of the problem. The lack of accessibility to specialized mental health care is a critical obstacle to treating patients with acute psychiatric needs.

How can primary care doctors effectively connect patients with mental health support, given the scarcity of mental health professionals?

A: Primary care doctors can leverage technology to extend mental health support. This includes using platforms for safety screening and providing patients with immediate access to local and national resources and digital interventions. Alerts can be sent to professionals within the practice or employed by technology companies to offer immediate support, including suicide safety planning and counseling. Users can hit a button to “Find a Therapist.” Also, if they acknowledge feelings of self-harm, these keywords are detected within the app by NLP. “Urgent alerts” are then sent to clinicians who are overseeing patient care. If someone is flagged, a social worker or member of a response services team intervenes and calls the person at risk to tailor care. These interventions do not always require a psychiatrist or masters-prepared clinician but can be effectively managed by trained paraprofessionals. These staff members can provide suicide safety planning and lethal-means-restriction counseling, and can assess the need for escalation of care.

Q: How is technology likely to manifest in physician practices in the near future to support mental health care?

A: Automated screening platforms for depression and anxiety, alerts for physicians when patients screen positively, and integration with collaborative care models are a few of the ways technology will become part of clinical practice. Additionally, advanced data analytics and predictive modeling using electronic health records and claims data will help identify high-risk patients. Technologies like voice recognition and machine learning can analyze patient journals and possibly, in the future, social media feeds to detect mental health issues. These technologies aim to extend and augment the capabilities of healthcare practices, improving the identification and management of patients at risk for mental health issues.

Q: Are these technologies as effective in pediatric populations, and are there any specific challenges?

A: Technologies for mental health screening and support are effective in pediatric populations, with certain age-specific considerations and legal restrictions on technology use. For adolescents and older children comfortable with technology, digital tools can significantly impact mental health care. For younger children, technology must facilitate information-gathering from various sources, including parents and teachers. Despite challenges, technology is crucial for early identification and intervention in pediatric mental health, potentially shortening the time to diagnosis and improving outcomes.

The statistics are horrifying. One third of adolescent girls have seriously thought about suicide over the past year; 13% attempt suicide. So there’s a need in the adolescent population and in the preadolescent population, too, because there’s an 8- to 10-year lag between onset of symptoms and diagnosis of mental illness. If we can shorten that lag, you see improved performance in schools; you see decreased truancy; you see greater economic achievement and so on. It makes such a profound difference. Not to mention it saves lives. So, yes, technology is critical in a pediatric population. It exists and it’s happening right now. There are challenges, but the goal can be met.

Q: A 2014 study found that 45% of people who completed suicide visited a primary care physician in the preceding month. And only 23% of people who attempt suicide have not seen a primary care physician within the past year. What does that say about the importance of screening at the primary care level?

A: The fact that a significant percentage of individuals who die by suicide have visited a primary care physician within a month or year prior to their death underscores the critical role of primary care in suicide prevention. This highlights the potential for primary care settings to identify and intervene with individuals at risk for suicide, making the case for the importance of integrating effective mental health screenings and support technologies in primary care practices.

Q: In other words, we’re not talking about a marginal benefit.

A: No, the potential benefit is huge. The United States Preventive Services Task Force did not endorse universal screening for suicide in its 2023 recommendations; they felt — and I accept that conclusion — there wasn›t enough evidence [at the time] to really support that recommendation. I think when you talk to a lot of suicide researchers, what you will hear is that providing suicide assessments as far upstream as possible is critical, especially when you start seeing more and more research showing that 20% of the population who die by suicide are not likely to have any psychiatric pathology at all. I believe the evidence base will soon support a recommendation for universal screening for adults. I believe it is especially important to screen for suicidal ideation in kids, given the high rates of suicide in this population.

Dr. Zaubler has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: chief medical officer, NeuroFlow.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in identifying patients at risk for serious mental health issues, including suicidality. But the ever-increasing demands on their clinical time can hinder the ability to identify emotional distress in time to intervene. Can artificial intelligence (AI) help?

This news organization spoke with Tom Zaubler, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer of NeuroFlow, about how AI can improve the ability of primary care physicians and other clinicians to screen their patients for suicidal ideation and boost rates of treatment for mental health issues in their patients. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Question: How can AI help in suicide prevention and mental health screening in primary care?

Answer: Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of AI in mental health screening and suicide prevention. One method is natural language processing (NLP), which can analyze patients› journal entries for signs of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. This technology has shown promise in detecting suicidal ideation in patients who may not report such thoughts on traditional screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). AI can be part of an integrated approach to identify and provide support to individuals at risk for suicide or those without a psychiatric history but who may still be at risk.

Q: A recent study by [Maria] Oquendo and colleagues found that one fifth of patients who attempt suicide do not meet the criteria for a mental health disorder.

Improved screening is obviously important, but in some ways it’s not the most important part of the problem. The lack of accessibility to specialized mental health care is a critical obstacle to treating patients with acute psychiatric needs.

How can primary care doctors effectively connect patients with mental health support, given the scarcity of mental health professionals?

A: Primary care doctors can leverage technology to extend mental health support. This includes using platforms for safety screening and providing patients with immediate access to local and national resources and digital interventions. Alerts can be sent to professionals within the practice or employed by technology companies to offer immediate support, including suicide safety planning and counseling. Users can hit a button to “Find a Therapist.” Also, if they acknowledge feelings of self-harm, these keywords are detected within the app by NLP. “Urgent alerts” are then sent to clinicians who are overseeing patient care. If someone is flagged, a social worker or member of a response services team intervenes and calls the person at risk to tailor care. These interventions do not always require a psychiatrist or masters-prepared clinician but can be effectively managed by trained paraprofessionals. These staff members can provide suicide safety planning and lethal-means-restriction counseling, and can assess the need for escalation of care.

Q: How is technology likely to manifest in physician practices in the near future to support mental health care?

A: Automated screening platforms for depression and anxiety, alerts for physicians when patients screen positively, and integration with collaborative care models are a few of the ways technology will become part of clinical practice. Additionally, advanced data analytics and predictive modeling using electronic health records and claims data will help identify high-risk patients. Technologies like voice recognition and machine learning can analyze patient journals and possibly, in the future, social media feeds to detect mental health issues. These technologies aim to extend and augment the capabilities of healthcare practices, improving the identification and management of patients at risk for mental health issues.

Q: Are these technologies as effective in pediatric populations, and are there any specific challenges?

A: Technologies for mental health screening and support are effective in pediatric populations, with certain age-specific considerations and legal restrictions on technology use. For adolescents and older children comfortable with technology, digital tools can significantly impact mental health care. For younger children, technology must facilitate information-gathering from various sources, including parents and teachers. Despite challenges, technology is crucial for early identification and intervention in pediatric mental health, potentially shortening the time to diagnosis and improving outcomes.

The statistics are horrifying. One third of adolescent girls have seriously thought about suicide over the past year; 13% attempt suicide. So there’s a need in the adolescent population and in the preadolescent population, too, because there’s an 8- to 10-year lag between onset of symptoms and diagnosis of mental illness. If we can shorten that lag, you see improved performance in schools; you see decreased truancy; you see greater economic achievement and so on. It makes such a profound difference. Not to mention it saves lives. So, yes, technology is critical in a pediatric population. It exists and it’s happening right now. There are challenges, but the goal can be met.

Q: A 2014 study found that 45% of people who completed suicide visited a primary care physician in the preceding month. And only 23% of people who attempt suicide have not seen a primary care physician within the past year. What does that say about the importance of screening at the primary care level?

A: The fact that a significant percentage of individuals who die by suicide have visited a primary care physician within a month or year prior to their death underscores the critical role of primary care in suicide prevention. This highlights the potential for primary care settings to identify and intervene with individuals at risk for suicide, making the case for the importance of integrating effective mental health screenings and support technologies in primary care practices.

Q: In other words, we’re not talking about a marginal benefit.

A: No, the potential benefit is huge. The United States Preventive Services Task Force did not endorse universal screening for suicide in its 2023 recommendations; they felt — and I accept that conclusion — there wasn›t enough evidence [at the time] to really support that recommendation. I think when you talk to a lot of suicide researchers, what you will hear is that providing suicide assessments as far upstream as possible is critical, especially when you start seeing more and more research showing that 20% of the population who die by suicide are not likely to have any psychiatric pathology at all. I believe the evidence base will soon support a recommendation for universal screening for adults. I believe it is especially important to screen for suicidal ideation in kids, given the high rates of suicide in this population.

Dr. Zaubler has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: chief medical officer, NeuroFlow.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.

Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.

The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.

The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.

The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Dose-Dependent Effect

Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.

The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.

The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.

Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.

Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.

More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.

At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
 

Untangling Genes and Environment

To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).

The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).

“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.

One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.

The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.

Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.

The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.

The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.

The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Dose-Dependent Effect

Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.

The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.

The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.

Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.

Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.

More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.

At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
 

Untangling Genes and Environment

To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).

The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).

“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.

One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.

The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.

Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.

The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.

The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.

The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Dose-Dependent Effect

Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.

The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.

The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.

Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.

Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.

More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.

At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
 

Untangling Genes and Environment

To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).

The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).

“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.

One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.

The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Scents that trigger specific, vivid autobiographical memories (AMs) could improve deficits in memory recall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests. Investigators found that odor cues may be a stronger tool than word cues for improving memory, which could help reduce MDD symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants included 32 individuals aged 18-55 years (mean age, 30 years; 26 females) with a diagnosis of MDD recruited from the community.
• Those with psychosis, bipolar I or II, neurological disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse were excluded.
• Participants were presented with a series of 12 words and 12 odors, such as cough syrup, tobacco ash, and Vicks VapoRub, and asked to recall a specific memory in response to each cue.
• AMs were rated in terms of vividness, frequency, and whether they were associated with positive or negative emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Although participants only guessed correct stimulus odors 30% of the time, they recalled more specific memories from odor cues than from word cues (68% vs 52%; P < .001).
• Odor-cued recall was more arousing and vivid (P < .001) than recall responses generated by word cues.
• Compared with the population mean for responses to word cues in healthy controls, study participants recalled fewer specific memories in response to words (P < .001), but the percentage of specific memories recalled in response to odor cues did not differ from the healthy control population mean.
• Investigators hoped to further their research by investigating the mechanisms underlying odor-cued AMs, particularly to test if the amygdala and hippocampus are activated during recall.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests the potential for increasing autobiographical memory specificity in individuals with MDD, with the future goal of reducing depression symptoms for this population and informing a better understanding of the neural mechanisms influencing odor-based AM recall,” the authors wrote. “We hope this initial study spurs larger studies in more diverse samples that include healthy control participants to further investigate and explain these associations.”

SOURCE:

Kymberly D. Young, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led the study, which was published online on February 13, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the lack of a healthy control group and the small sample size. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded internally by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania. No disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Scents that trigger specific, vivid autobiographical memories (AMs) could improve deficits in memory recall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests. Investigators found that odor cues may be a stronger tool than word cues for improving memory, which could help reduce MDD symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants included 32 individuals aged 18-55 years (mean age, 30 years; 26 females) with a diagnosis of MDD recruited from the community.
• Those with psychosis, bipolar I or II, neurological disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse were excluded.
• Participants were presented with a series of 12 words and 12 odors, such as cough syrup, tobacco ash, and Vicks VapoRub, and asked to recall a specific memory in response to each cue.
• AMs were rated in terms of vividness, frequency, and whether they were associated with positive or negative emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Although participants only guessed correct stimulus odors 30% of the time, they recalled more specific memories from odor cues than from word cues (68% vs 52%; P < .001).
• Odor-cued recall was more arousing and vivid (P < .001) than recall responses generated by word cues.
• Compared with the population mean for responses to word cues in healthy controls, study participants recalled fewer specific memories in response to words (P < .001), but the percentage of specific memories recalled in response to odor cues did not differ from the healthy control population mean.
• Investigators hoped to further their research by investigating the mechanisms underlying odor-cued AMs, particularly to test if the amygdala and hippocampus are activated during recall.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests the potential for increasing autobiographical memory specificity in individuals with MDD, with the future goal of reducing depression symptoms for this population and informing a better understanding of the neural mechanisms influencing odor-based AM recall,” the authors wrote. “We hope this initial study spurs larger studies in more diverse samples that include healthy control participants to further investigate and explain these associations.”

SOURCE:

Kymberly D. Young, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led the study, which was published online on February 13, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the lack of a healthy control group and the small sample size. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded internally by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania. No disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Scents that trigger specific, vivid autobiographical memories (AMs) could improve deficits in memory recall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests. Investigators found that odor cues may be a stronger tool than word cues for improving memory, which could help reduce MDD symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants included 32 individuals aged 18-55 years (mean age, 30 years; 26 females) with a diagnosis of MDD recruited from the community.
• Those with psychosis, bipolar I or II, neurological disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse were excluded.
• Participants were presented with a series of 12 words and 12 odors, such as cough syrup, tobacco ash, and Vicks VapoRub, and asked to recall a specific memory in response to each cue.
• AMs were rated in terms of vividness, frequency, and whether they were associated with positive or negative emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Although participants only guessed correct stimulus odors 30% of the time, they recalled more specific memories from odor cues than from word cues (68% vs 52%; P < .001).
• Odor-cued recall was more arousing and vivid (P < .001) than recall responses generated by word cues.
• Compared with the population mean for responses to word cues in healthy controls, study participants recalled fewer specific memories in response to words (P < .001), but the percentage of specific memories recalled in response to odor cues did not differ from the healthy control population mean.
• Investigators hoped to further their research by investigating the mechanisms underlying odor-cued AMs, particularly to test if the amygdala and hippocampus are activated during recall.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests the potential for increasing autobiographical memory specificity in individuals with MDD, with the future goal of reducing depression symptoms for this population and informing a better understanding of the neural mechanisms influencing odor-based AM recall,” the authors wrote. “We hope this initial study spurs larger studies in more diverse samples that include healthy control participants to further investigate and explain these associations.”

SOURCE:

Kymberly D. Young, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led the study, which was published online on February 13, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the lack of a healthy control group and the small sample size. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded internally by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania. No disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

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.

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.