User login
Clinical index predicts common postpartum mental health disorders
Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.
Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.
“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”
In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”
A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
Split-cohort design
Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.
A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.
Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.
Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
Risk drivers
PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).
They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).
As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).
In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).
Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.
Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.
She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.
Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.
Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.
It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”
As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”
It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”
Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”
The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”
The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.
Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.
Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.
“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”
In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”
A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
Split-cohort design
Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.
A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.
Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.
Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
Risk drivers
PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).
They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).
As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).
In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).
Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.
Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.
She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.
Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.
Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.
It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”
As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”
It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”
Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”
The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”
The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.
Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.
Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.
“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”
In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”
A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
Split-cohort design
Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.
A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.
Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.
Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
Risk drivers
PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).
They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).
As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).
In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).
Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.
Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.
She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.
Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.
Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.
It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”
As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”
It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”
Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”
The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”
The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
End of the road for transcranial brain stimulation as an adjunct in major depression?
The study showed no difference in mean improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 6 weeks between active and sham tDCS.
“Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD,” the investigators, led by Frank Padberg, MD, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, write.
The study was published online in The Lancet.
Rigorous trial
Because it neurophysiologically modulates prefrontal cortex connectivity, tDCS has been proposed as a potential treatment for MDD.
Yet evidence for its efficacy has been inconsistent, and there is a scarcity of multicenter trial data, the researchers note.
The DepressionDC trial assessed the efficacy of tDCS in combination with SSRIs in 160 adults with MDD. Participants had a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version); their conditions had not responded to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode; and they had received treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks. The SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation.
Eighty-three patients were allocated to undergo 30 min of 2-mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks; 77 patients were assigned to receive matching sham stimulation. Randomization was stratified by baseline MADRS score of less than 31 or 31 and higher.
In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no between-group difference in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 (–8.2 with active and –8.0 with sham tDCS; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, –2.4 to 2.9).
There was also no significant difference for all secondary outcomes, including response and remission rates, patient-reported depression, and functioning, as well as at 18-week and 30-week follow-up visits.
There were significantly more mild adverse events reported in the active tDCS group than in the sham group (60% vs. 43%; P = .028). The most common adverse events were headaches, local skin reactions, and sleep-related problems.
Still reason for optimism
These findings call into question the efficacy of tDCS as add-on therapy to SSRI treatment for individuals with MDD and highlight the need for supportive evidence from multicenter studies, the investigators write.
Yet Dr. Padberg said it’s not the end of the road for tDCS for depression.
tDCS exerts a “rather subtle and nonfocal effect on neuronal activity. Thus, tDCS may need to be combined with specific behavioral or cognitive interventions which functionally involve the brain region where tDCS is targeted at,” he said.
Another “promising avenue” is personalization of tDCS by “individual MRI-based computational modeling of tDCS-induced electric fields,” he noted.
The coauthors of an accompanying commentary note that the DepressionDC trial was “carefully designed” and “well executed.”
And while the results did not show the superiority of active tDCS over sham stimulation as an additional treatment to SSRI therapy, “clinicians and researchers should not disregard this treatment for people with MDD,” write Daphne Voineskos, MD, PhD, and Daniel Blumberger, MD, with the University of Toronto.
“Specifically, further exploration of placebo response in less heterogeneous MDD samples and the evaluation of tDCS as an earlier treatment option for people with MDD are important areas of future research,” they suggest.
“Moreover, elucidating the effects of interindividual anatomical variability on electrical current distribution might lead to tDCS protocols that individualize treatment to optimize therapeutic effects as opposed to a so-called one-size-fits-all approach.
“Overall, there is reason for optimism about the potential to individualize tDCS and deliver it outside of the clinical setting,” Dr. Voineskos and Dr. Blumberger conclude.
Funding for the study was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Several authors disclosed relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of disclosures of authors and comment writers is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study showed no difference in mean improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 6 weeks between active and sham tDCS.
“Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD,” the investigators, led by Frank Padberg, MD, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, write.
The study was published online in The Lancet.
Rigorous trial
Because it neurophysiologically modulates prefrontal cortex connectivity, tDCS has been proposed as a potential treatment for MDD.
Yet evidence for its efficacy has been inconsistent, and there is a scarcity of multicenter trial data, the researchers note.
The DepressionDC trial assessed the efficacy of tDCS in combination with SSRIs in 160 adults with MDD. Participants had a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version); their conditions had not responded to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode; and they had received treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks. The SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation.
Eighty-three patients were allocated to undergo 30 min of 2-mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks; 77 patients were assigned to receive matching sham stimulation. Randomization was stratified by baseline MADRS score of less than 31 or 31 and higher.
In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no between-group difference in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 (–8.2 with active and –8.0 with sham tDCS; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, –2.4 to 2.9).
There was also no significant difference for all secondary outcomes, including response and remission rates, patient-reported depression, and functioning, as well as at 18-week and 30-week follow-up visits.
There were significantly more mild adverse events reported in the active tDCS group than in the sham group (60% vs. 43%; P = .028). The most common adverse events were headaches, local skin reactions, and sleep-related problems.
Still reason for optimism
These findings call into question the efficacy of tDCS as add-on therapy to SSRI treatment for individuals with MDD and highlight the need for supportive evidence from multicenter studies, the investigators write.
Yet Dr. Padberg said it’s not the end of the road for tDCS for depression.
tDCS exerts a “rather subtle and nonfocal effect on neuronal activity. Thus, tDCS may need to be combined with specific behavioral or cognitive interventions which functionally involve the brain region where tDCS is targeted at,” he said.
Another “promising avenue” is personalization of tDCS by “individual MRI-based computational modeling of tDCS-induced electric fields,” he noted.
The coauthors of an accompanying commentary note that the DepressionDC trial was “carefully designed” and “well executed.”
And while the results did not show the superiority of active tDCS over sham stimulation as an additional treatment to SSRI therapy, “clinicians and researchers should not disregard this treatment for people with MDD,” write Daphne Voineskos, MD, PhD, and Daniel Blumberger, MD, with the University of Toronto.
“Specifically, further exploration of placebo response in less heterogeneous MDD samples and the evaluation of tDCS as an earlier treatment option for people with MDD are important areas of future research,” they suggest.
“Moreover, elucidating the effects of interindividual anatomical variability on electrical current distribution might lead to tDCS protocols that individualize treatment to optimize therapeutic effects as opposed to a so-called one-size-fits-all approach.
“Overall, there is reason for optimism about the potential to individualize tDCS and deliver it outside of the clinical setting,” Dr. Voineskos and Dr. Blumberger conclude.
Funding for the study was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Several authors disclosed relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of disclosures of authors and comment writers is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study showed no difference in mean improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 6 weeks between active and sham tDCS.
“Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD,” the investigators, led by Frank Padberg, MD, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, write.
The study was published online in The Lancet.
Rigorous trial
Because it neurophysiologically modulates prefrontal cortex connectivity, tDCS has been proposed as a potential treatment for MDD.
Yet evidence for its efficacy has been inconsistent, and there is a scarcity of multicenter trial data, the researchers note.
The DepressionDC trial assessed the efficacy of tDCS in combination with SSRIs in 160 adults with MDD. Participants had a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version); their conditions had not responded to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode; and they had received treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks. The SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation.
Eighty-three patients were allocated to undergo 30 min of 2-mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks; 77 patients were assigned to receive matching sham stimulation. Randomization was stratified by baseline MADRS score of less than 31 or 31 and higher.
In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no between-group difference in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 (–8.2 with active and –8.0 with sham tDCS; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, –2.4 to 2.9).
There was also no significant difference for all secondary outcomes, including response and remission rates, patient-reported depression, and functioning, as well as at 18-week and 30-week follow-up visits.
There were significantly more mild adverse events reported in the active tDCS group than in the sham group (60% vs. 43%; P = .028). The most common adverse events were headaches, local skin reactions, and sleep-related problems.
Still reason for optimism
These findings call into question the efficacy of tDCS as add-on therapy to SSRI treatment for individuals with MDD and highlight the need for supportive evidence from multicenter studies, the investigators write.
Yet Dr. Padberg said it’s not the end of the road for tDCS for depression.
tDCS exerts a “rather subtle and nonfocal effect on neuronal activity. Thus, tDCS may need to be combined with specific behavioral or cognitive interventions which functionally involve the brain region where tDCS is targeted at,” he said.
Another “promising avenue” is personalization of tDCS by “individual MRI-based computational modeling of tDCS-induced electric fields,” he noted.
The coauthors of an accompanying commentary note that the DepressionDC trial was “carefully designed” and “well executed.”
And while the results did not show the superiority of active tDCS over sham stimulation as an additional treatment to SSRI therapy, “clinicians and researchers should not disregard this treatment for people with MDD,” write Daphne Voineskos, MD, PhD, and Daniel Blumberger, MD, with the University of Toronto.
“Specifically, further exploration of placebo response in less heterogeneous MDD samples and the evaluation of tDCS as an earlier treatment option for people with MDD are important areas of future research,” they suggest.
“Moreover, elucidating the effects of interindividual anatomical variability on electrical current distribution might lead to tDCS protocols that individualize treatment to optimize therapeutic effects as opposed to a so-called one-size-fits-all approach.
“Overall, there is reason for optimism about the potential to individualize tDCS and deliver it outside of the clinical setting,” Dr. Voineskos and Dr. Blumberger conclude.
Funding for the study was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Several authors disclosed relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of disclosures of authors and comment writers is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET
As psychiatrists, do we offer hope or do we offer death?
I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.
Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.
The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.
In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.
While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.
Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.
In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”
As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.
Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.
These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.
As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?
As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?
Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.
She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”
She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”
As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.
Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.
The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.
In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.
While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.
Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.
In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”
As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.
Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.
These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.
As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?
As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?
Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.
She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”
She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”
As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.
Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.
The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.
In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.
While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.
Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.
In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”
As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.
Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.
These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.
As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?
As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?
Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.
She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”
She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”
As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Schizophrenia up to three times more common than previously thought
, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.
This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.
The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.
The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.
Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.
The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.
The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.
Among the key findings in the report:
- Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
- Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
- The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
- Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
- Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
- About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.
Multiple comorbidities
The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.
About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.
In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.
Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.
However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.
The full report is available online.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.
This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.
The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.
The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.
Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.
The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.
The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.
Among the key findings in the report:
- Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
- Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
- The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
- Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
- Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
- About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.
Multiple comorbidities
The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.
About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.
In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.
Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.
However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.
The full report is available online.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.
This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.
The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.
The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.
Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.
The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.
The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.
Among the key findings in the report:
- Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
- Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
- The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
- Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
- Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
- About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.
Multiple comorbidities
The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.
About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.
In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.
Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.
However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.
The full report is available online.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel tool accurately predicts suicide after self-harm
Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.
A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.
“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.
The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
Targeted tool
Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.
Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.
In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.
Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.
The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.
The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.
“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.
Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.
The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.
“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
Valuable work
Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”
Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.
He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.
“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.
In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”
Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.
As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.
Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.
A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.
“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.
The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
Targeted tool
Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.
Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.
In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.
Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.
The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.
The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.
“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.
Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.
The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.
“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
Valuable work
Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”
Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.
He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.
“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.
In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”
Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.
As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.
Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.
A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.
“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.
The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
Targeted tool
Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.
Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.
In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.
Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.
The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.
The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.
“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.
Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.
The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.
“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
Valuable work
Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”
Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.
He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.
“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.
In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”
Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.
As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.
Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician suicide roundtable: 8 important initiatives that can help
Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.
These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery.
These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
Our physician experts for this discussion
Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.
Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.
Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”
The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
The importance of peer support programs
Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.
Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.
Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters.
Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.
Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.
Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.
Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents
This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.
Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’
Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.
Dr. Moutier: It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.
So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.
It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?
And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?
This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.
Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.
Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.
Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.
A buddy to check in with
This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.
Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.
A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
A platform or social media forum to share experiences
An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.
Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.
Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.
Interactive Screening Program
The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.
Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.
It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.
Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.
It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.
Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
The importance of confidentiality for physicians
In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.
Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.
When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help.
The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)
Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.
Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.
Support for colleagues working to help each other
Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.
We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.
These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery.
These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
Our physician experts for this discussion
Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.
Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.
Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”
The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
The importance of peer support programs
Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.
Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.
Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters.
Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.
Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.
Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.
Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents
This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.
Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’
Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.
Dr. Moutier: It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.
So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.
It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?
And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?
This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.
Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.
Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.
Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.
A buddy to check in with
This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.
Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.
A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
A platform or social media forum to share experiences
An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.
Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.
Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.
Interactive Screening Program
The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.
Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.
It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.
Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.
It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.
Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
The importance of confidentiality for physicians
In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.
Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.
When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help.
The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)
Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.
Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.
Support for colleagues working to help each other
Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.
We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.
These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery.
These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
Our physician experts for this discussion
Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.
Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.
Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”
The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
The importance of peer support programs
Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.
Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.
Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters.
Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.
Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.
Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.
Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents
This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.
Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’
Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.
Dr. Moutier: It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.
So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.
It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?
And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?
This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.
Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.
Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.
Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.
A buddy to check in with
This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.
Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.
A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
A platform or social media forum to share experiences
An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.
Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.
Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.
Interactive Screening Program
The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.
Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.
It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.
Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.
It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.
Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
The importance of confidentiality for physicians
In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.
Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.
When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help.
The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)
Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.
Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.
Support for colleagues working to help each other
Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.
We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
More than 30 experts question validity of serotonin/depression study
The authors of the article, however, stand by their conclusion.
“The methodology doesn’t conform to a conventional umbrella review,” said the commentary’s lead author, Sameer Jauhar, MD, PhD, first author of the commentary criticizing the review, which was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
In addition, preeminent psychiatrist David J. Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, is calling for the review to be retracted. In an interview with The Daily Mail, he said the article is “full of flaws and it should never have been published in the first place. Yet it has been frequently cited and people believe it is true. It’s essentially misinformation. That’s why I’m calling on the journal to retract it.” Dr. Nutt is one of the authors of the published commentary.
‘No convincing evidence’
Led by Joanna Moncrieff, MD, professor of clinical and social psychiatry, University College London, the authors analyzed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether low serotonin levels are, in fact, associated with depression.
Of 361 potential studies, 17 were selected for the review, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and a genetic association study.
The review included examinations of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in “body fluids,” 5HT1A receptor and serotonin transporter protein (SERT) availability in imaging and postmortem studies, investigations of SERT gene polymorphisms, interactions between SERT and stress in depression, and effects of tryptophan depletion on mood.
The tryptophan hypothesis suggests depression occurs through tryptophan depletion, which lowers available serotonin. According to the review, two crossover studies of patients with depression who were currently receiving or had recently received antidepressant treatment did not show substantial effects of depletion, and data from studies involving volunteers largely showed no effect.
Ultimately, Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues concluded that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
‘Unconventional, odd’ methodology
However, Dr. Jauhar and the commentary’s coauthors disagree with the study’s conclusion. The researchers claim that “we don’t see depression symptoms in healthy volunteers when given tryptophan depletion; everyone knows that and agrees with that; it’s only in people vulnerable to depression who will have it.”
Furthermore, he said, the study’s conclusion does not consider that experimental medicine studies of tryptophan depletion are difficult to conduct. “You’re not going to have huge sample sizes as you would in a genetic study or big epidemiological studies.
Dr. Jauhar said he found it “unconventional” and “odd” that the review included individual tryptophan depletion studies that were not in the prespecified protocol.
For studies involving molecular imaging, Dr. Jauhar said the review’s inferences were “simplistic” and the review authors are “basically shaping the argument” to fit their desired narrative.
He also noted factual errors in the review. “They make a mistake when they talk about serotonin transporter imaging; they say there are no consistent findings across studies when, in fact, there are.”
With both tryptophan depletion and molecular imaging studies, the review “glosses over findings” from the original studies, said Dr. Jauhar.
For tryptophan depletion, “a more accurate, constructive conclusion would be that acute tryptophan depletion and decreased plasma tryptophan in depression indicate a role for 5-HT in those vulnerable to or suffering from depression, and that molecular imaging suggests the system is perturbed,” the commentators wrote.
“The proven efficacy of SSRIs in a proportion of people with depression lends credibility to this position,” they added.
Dr. Jauhar also took issue with criteria for certainty of finding of these and other studies used in the review. “If you’re setting the criteria yourself, it’s arbitrary.”
No new data
An umbrella review is supposed to be of the highest quality and should entail “taking out the studies and analysing them yourself,” but here, “all they have done is put a synthesis forward of other people’s reviews, so essentially there’s no new data there,” said Dr. Jauhar.
And sometimes the review’s findings differ from the original research. “When you have people who haven’t conducted original research themselves quoting someone else’s work and ignoring what those people say, we’re all in trouble,” said Dr. Jauhar.
In an additional commentary also published in Molecular Psychiatry, Jacob Pade Ramsøe Jacobsen, Evecxia Therapeutics, Durham, N.C., also criticized the review by Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues.
Its authors appear unfamiliar with serotonin biology and pharmacology, Dr. Jacobsen wrote.
“The review contains factual errors, makes conclusions serotonin neurobiology may not support, and quotes the cited literature in a selective manner,” he added.
“Most troubling, they misinterpret some data reviewed and intimate that serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, e.g., SSRIs, may decrease, rather than increase, serotonin function.”
If accepted by general practitioners and the public, the review’s conclusions “could lead to reduced use of antidepressants among patients in need and increased morbidity related to depression.”
Dr. Moncrieff pushes back
Responding to the torrent of criticism of her study, Dr. Moncrieff told this news organization via email that they stand by the review, adding that Dr. Jauhar and others “don’t want to let the cat out of the bag” that there’s no good evidence to support the hypothesis that low serotonin causes depression because it challenges antidepressant use.
“The idea that antidepressants work by correcting an underlying chemical imbalance or serotonin abnormality has led research up a blind alley and meant scientists have not taken the harmful effects of these drugs seriously enough.”
These critics, she added, “want business as usual – which means people will continue to be misinformed and exposed to harmful effects of drugs that have minimal and uncertain benefits.”
In a letter to the editor of Molecular Psychiatry, Dr. Moncrieff and her fellow authors maintain that they used approved and well-accepted methods for the umbrella review, including preregistering the protocol and using recommended search methods and quality assessments, and that they did not miss certain studies, as has been claimed.
In her blog, Dr. Moncrieff wrote that the “marginal differences between antidepressants and placebo that are apparent in clinical trials are likely to be produced by alternative, more plausible mechanisms like the emotional blunting effects of the drugs or by amplified placebo effects, rather than by targeting underlying biological mechanisms (since these have not been demonstrated).”
It also highlights “how we don’t know what antidepressants do to the brain exactly, which is a cause for concern,” she adds.
Dr. Jauhar has received honoraria for nonpromotional educational talks on antipsychotics from Janssen, Sunovion, and Lundbeck and on causes of schizophrenia for Boehringer-Ingelheim. He has also received honoraria for consulting on antipsychotics for LB Pharmaceuticals. He sits on Council for the British Association for Psychopharmacology and was a recent panel member for the Wellcome Trust.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The authors of the article, however, stand by their conclusion.
“The methodology doesn’t conform to a conventional umbrella review,” said the commentary’s lead author, Sameer Jauhar, MD, PhD, first author of the commentary criticizing the review, which was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
In addition, preeminent psychiatrist David J. Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, is calling for the review to be retracted. In an interview with The Daily Mail, he said the article is “full of flaws and it should never have been published in the first place. Yet it has been frequently cited and people believe it is true. It’s essentially misinformation. That’s why I’m calling on the journal to retract it.” Dr. Nutt is one of the authors of the published commentary.
‘No convincing evidence’
Led by Joanna Moncrieff, MD, professor of clinical and social psychiatry, University College London, the authors analyzed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether low serotonin levels are, in fact, associated with depression.
Of 361 potential studies, 17 were selected for the review, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and a genetic association study.
The review included examinations of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in “body fluids,” 5HT1A receptor and serotonin transporter protein (SERT) availability in imaging and postmortem studies, investigations of SERT gene polymorphisms, interactions between SERT and stress in depression, and effects of tryptophan depletion on mood.
The tryptophan hypothesis suggests depression occurs through tryptophan depletion, which lowers available serotonin. According to the review, two crossover studies of patients with depression who were currently receiving or had recently received antidepressant treatment did not show substantial effects of depletion, and data from studies involving volunteers largely showed no effect.
Ultimately, Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues concluded that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
‘Unconventional, odd’ methodology
However, Dr. Jauhar and the commentary’s coauthors disagree with the study’s conclusion. The researchers claim that “we don’t see depression symptoms in healthy volunteers when given tryptophan depletion; everyone knows that and agrees with that; it’s only in people vulnerable to depression who will have it.”
Furthermore, he said, the study’s conclusion does not consider that experimental medicine studies of tryptophan depletion are difficult to conduct. “You’re not going to have huge sample sizes as you would in a genetic study or big epidemiological studies.
Dr. Jauhar said he found it “unconventional” and “odd” that the review included individual tryptophan depletion studies that were not in the prespecified protocol.
For studies involving molecular imaging, Dr. Jauhar said the review’s inferences were “simplistic” and the review authors are “basically shaping the argument” to fit their desired narrative.
He also noted factual errors in the review. “They make a mistake when they talk about serotonin transporter imaging; they say there are no consistent findings across studies when, in fact, there are.”
With both tryptophan depletion and molecular imaging studies, the review “glosses over findings” from the original studies, said Dr. Jauhar.
For tryptophan depletion, “a more accurate, constructive conclusion would be that acute tryptophan depletion and decreased plasma tryptophan in depression indicate a role for 5-HT in those vulnerable to or suffering from depression, and that molecular imaging suggests the system is perturbed,” the commentators wrote.
“The proven efficacy of SSRIs in a proportion of people with depression lends credibility to this position,” they added.
Dr. Jauhar also took issue with criteria for certainty of finding of these and other studies used in the review. “If you’re setting the criteria yourself, it’s arbitrary.”
No new data
An umbrella review is supposed to be of the highest quality and should entail “taking out the studies and analysing them yourself,” but here, “all they have done is put a synthesis forward of other people’s reviews, so essentially there’s no new data there,” said Dr. Jauhar.
And sometimes the review’s findings differ from the original research. “When you have people who haven’t conducted original research themselves quoting someone else’s work and ignoring what those people say, we’re all in trouble,” said Dr. Jauhar.
In an additional commentary also published in Molecular Psychiatry, Jacob Pade Ramsøe Jacobsen, Evecxia Therapeutics, Durham, N.C., also criticized the review by Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues.
Its authors appear unfamiliar with serotonin biology and pharmacology, Dr. Jacobsen wrote.
“The review contains factual errors, makes conclusions serotonin neurobiology may not support, and quotes the cited literature in a selective manner,” he added.
“Most troubling, they misinterpret some data reviewed and intimate that serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, e.g., SSRIs, may decrease, rather than increase, serotonin function.”
If accepted by general practitioners and the public, the review’s conclusions “could lead to reduced use of antidepressants among patients in need and increased morbidity related to depression.”
Dr. Moncrieff pushes back
Responding to the torrent of criticism of her study, Dr. Moncrieff told this news organization via email that they stand by the review, adding that Dr. Jauhar and others “don’t want to let the cat out of the bag” that there’s no good evidence to support the hypothesis that low serotonin causes depression because it challenges antidepressant use.
“The idea that antidepressants work by correcting an underlying chemical imbalance or serotonin abnormality has led research up a blind alley and meant scientists have not taken the harmful effects of these drugs seriously enough.”
These critics, she added, “want business as usual – which means people will continue to be misinformed and exposed to harmful effects of drugs that have minimal and uncertain benefits.”
In a letter to the editor of Molecular Psychiatry, Dr. Moncrieff and her fellow authors maintain that they used approved and well-accepted methods for the umbrella review, including preregistering the protocol and using recommended search methods and quality assessments, and that they did not miss certain studies, as has been claimed.
In her blog, Dr. Moncrieff wrote that the “marginal differences between antidepressants and placebo that are apparent in clinical trials are likely to be produced by alternative, more plausible mechanisms like the emotional blunting effects of the drugs or by amplified placebo effects, rather than by targeting underlying biological mechanisms (since these have not been demonstrated).”
It also highlights “how we don’t know what antidepressants do to the brain exactly, which is a cause for concern,” she adds.
Dr. Jauhar has received honoraria for nonpromotional educational talks on antipsychotics from Janssen, Sunovion, and Lundbeck and on causes of schizophrenia for Boehringer-Ingelheim. He has also received honoraria for consulting on antipsychotics for LB Pharmaceuticals. He sits on Council for the British Association for Psychopharmacology and was a recent panel member for the Wellcome Trust.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The authors of the article, however, stand by their conclusion.
“The methodology doesn’t conform to a conventional umbrella review,” said the commentary’s lead author, Sameer Jauhar, MD, PhD, first author of the commentary criticizing the review, which was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
In addition, preeminent psychiatrist David J. Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, is calling for the review to be retracted. In an interview with The Daily Mail, he said the article is “full of flaws and it should never have been published in the first place. Yet it has been frequently cited and people believe it is true. It’s essentially misinformation. That’s why I’m calling on the journal to retract it.” Dr. Nutt is one of the authors of the published commentary.
‘No convincing evidence’
Led by Joanna Moncrieff, MD, professor of clinical and social psychiatry, University College London, the authors analyzed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether low serotonin levels are, in fact, associated with depression.
Of 361 potential studies, 17 were selected for the review, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and a genetic association study.
The review included examinations of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in “body fluids,” 5HT1A receptor and serotonin transporter protein (SERT) availability in imaging and postmortem studies, investigations of SERT gene polymorphisms, interactions between SERT and stress in depression, and effects of tryptophan depletion on mood.
The tryptophan hypothesis suggests depression occurs through tryptophan depletion, which lowers available serotonin. According to the review, two crossover studies of patients with depression who were currently receiving or had recently received antidepressant treatment did not show substantial effects of depletion, and data from studies involving volunteers largely showed no effect.
Ultimately, Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues concluded that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
‘Unconventional, odd’ methodology
However, Dr. Jauhar and the commentary’s coauthors disagree with the study’s conclusion. The researchers claim that “we don’t see depression symptoms in healthy volunteers when given tryptophan depletion; everyone knows that and agrees with that; it’s only in people vulnerable to depression who will have it.”
Furthermore, he said, the study’s conclusion does not consider that experimental medicine studies of tryptophan depletion are difficult to conduct. “You’re not going to have huge sample sizes as you would in a genetic study or big epidemiological studies.
Dr. Jauhar said he found it “unconventional” and “odd” that the review included individual tryptophan depletion studies that were not in the prespecified protocol.
For studies involving molecular imaging, Dr. Jauhar said the review’s inferences were “simplistic” and the review authors are “basically shaping the argument” to fit their desired narrative.
He also noted factual errors in the review. “They make a mistake when they talk about serotonin transporter imaging; they say there are no consistent findings across studies when, in fact, there are.”
With both tryptophan depletion and molecular imaging studies, the review “glosses over findings” from the original studies, said Dr. Jauhar.
For tryptophan depletion, “a more accurate, constructive conclusion would be that acute tryptophan depletion and decreased plasma tryptophan in depression indicate a role for 5-HT in those vulnerable to or suffering from depression, and that molecular imaging suggests the system is perturbed,” the commentators wrote.
“The proven efficacy of SSRIs in a proportion of people with depression lends credibility to this position,” they added.
Dr. Jauhar also took issue with criteria for certainty of finding of these and other studies used in the review. “If you’re setting the criteria yourself, it’s arbitrary.”
No new data
An umbrella review is supposed to be of the highest quality and should entail “taking out the studies and analysing them yourself,” but here, “all they have done is put a synthesis forward of other people’s reviews, so essentially there’s no new data there,” said Dr. Jauhar.
And sometimes the review’s findings differ from the original research. “When you have people who haven’t conducted original research themselves quoting someone else’s work and ignoring what those people say, we’re all in trouble,” said Dr. Jauhar.
In an additional commentary also published in Molecular Psychiatry, Jacob Pade Ramsøe Jacobsen, Evecxia Therapeutics, Durham, N.C., also criticized the review by Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues.
Its authors appear unfamiliar with serotonin biology and pharmacology, Dr. Jacobsen wrote.
“The review contains factual errors, makes conclusions serotonin neurobiology may not support, and quotes the cited literature in a selective manner,” he added.
“Most troubling, they misinterpret some data reviewed and intimate that serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, e.g., SSRIs, may decrease, rather than increase, serotonin function.”
If accepted by general practitioners and the public, the review’s conclusions “could lead to reduced use of antidepressants among patients in need and increased morbidity related to depression.”
Dr. Moncrieff pushes back
Responding to the torrent of criticism of her study, Dr. Moncrieff told this news organization via email that they stand by the review, adding that Dr. Jauhar and others “don’t want to let the cat out of the bag” that there’s no good evidence to support the hypothesis that low serotonin causes depression because it challenges antidepressant use.
“The idea that antidepressants work by correcting an underlying chemical imbalance or serotonin abnormality has led research up a blind alley and meant scientists have not taken the harmful effects of these drugs seriously enough.”
These critics, she added, “want business as usual – which means people will continue to be misinformed and exposed to harmful effects of drugs that have minimal and uncertain benefits.”
In a letter to the editor of Molecular Psychiatry, Dr. Moncrieff and her fellow authors maintain that they used approved and well-accepted methods for the umbrella review, including preregistering the protocol and using recommended search methods and quality assessments, and that they did not miss certain studies, as has been claimed.
In her blog, Dr. Moncrieff wrote that the “marginal differences between antidepressants and placebo that are apparent in clinical trials are likely to be produced by alternative, more plausible mechanisms like the emotional blunting effects of the drugs or by amplified placebo effects, rather than by targeting underlying biological mechanisms (since these have not been demonstrated).”
It also highlights “how we don’t know what antidepressants do to the brain exactly, which is a cause for concern,” she adds.
Dr. Jauhar has received honoraria for nonpromotional educational talks on antipsychotics from Janssen, Sunovion, and Lundbeck and on causes of schizophrenia for Boehringer-Ingelheim. He has also received honoraria for consulting on antipsychotics for LB Pharmaceuticals. He sits on Council for the British Association for Psychopharmacology and was a recent panel member for the Wellcome Trust.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CBSM phone app eases anxiety, depression in cancer patients
CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.
Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.
A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.
In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.
The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.
“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.
“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
Impressive and elegant
“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.
“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.
CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.
To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.
Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.
They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
High-quality control
Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”
“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.
A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.
The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).
CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)
An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.
The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.
“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”
The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.
Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.
A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.
In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.
The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.
“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.
“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
Impressive and elegant
“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.
“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.
CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.
To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.
Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.
They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
High-quality control
Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”
“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.
A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.
The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).
CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)
An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.
The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.
“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”
The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.
Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.
A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.
In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.
The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.
“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.
“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
Impressive and elegant
“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.
“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.
CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.
To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.
Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.
They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
High-quality control
Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”
“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.
A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.
The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).
CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)
An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.
The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.
“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”
The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
SSRI improves cognition, major depression in early dementia
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
- Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
- Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
TAKEAWAY:
- There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
- Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
- There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
- Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.
IN PRACTICE:
“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
- Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
- Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
TAKEAWAY:
- There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
- Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
- There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
- Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.
IN PRACTICE:
“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
- Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
- Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
TAKEAWAY:
- There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
- Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
- There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
- Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.
IN PRACTICE:
“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Therapists’ oxytocin levels tied to patient outcomes
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Evidence suggests patient experiences of negative emotions predict outcomes of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD), but mechanisms remain unclear.
- Researchers used a mediation model based on the role of oxytocin (OT) in attachment relationships, such as between parent and infant.
- They collected 435 oxytocin samples pre- and post-session from therapists of 62 patients receiving psychotherapy for MDD.
- Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) was administered to patients before sessions, and patients reported their in-session emotions.
TAKEAWAY:
- Higher negative emotion levels of patients predicted higher therapist oxytocin levels on the post-session assessment, when controlling for the pre-session oxytocin (“a” path [same-session path between negative affect and OT levels]: 0.11; standard error, 0.05; P = 03; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.20)
- Higher therapist oxytocin levels predicted lower depression severity in the next session (“b” path [time-lagged association between post-session OT levels and depression severity]: –0.97; SE, 0.34; P = .005; 95 % CI, –1.57 to –0.22)
- An increase in therapists’ oxytocin in response to patients’ negative emotions may represent activation of the therapists’ caregiving system signaling the emergence of a healthy therapeutic interaction.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings suggest that therapists’ oxytocin responses could potentially serve as a biomarker of an effective therapeutic process,” the researchers write.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Hadar Fisher, department of psychology, University of Haifa, Israel, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample size, while one of the largest in studies looking at oxytocin in psychotherapy, still has limited statistical power. The study used post-session retrospective self-reports to measure negative emotions, which focused on patients’ experiences rather than expression of these emotions.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation. The authors report no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Evidence suggests patient experiences of negative emotions predict outcomes of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD), but mechanisms remain unclear.
- Researchers used a mediation model based on the role of oxytocin (OT) in attachment relationships, such as between parent and infant.
- They collected 435 oxytocin samples pre- and post-session from therapists of 62 patients receiving psychotherapy for MDD.
- Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) was administered to patients before sessions, and patients reported their in-session emotions.
TAKEAWAY:
- Higher negative emotion levels of patients predicted higher therapist oxytocin levels on the post-session assessment, when controlling for the pre-session oxytocin (“a” path [same-session path between negative affect and OT levels]: 0.11; standard error, 0.05; P = 03; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.20)
- Higher therapist oxytocin levels predicted lower depression severity in the next session (“b” path [time-lagged association between post-session OT levels and depression severity]: –0.97; SE, 0.34; P = .005; 95 % CI, –1.57 to –0.22)
- An increase in therapists’ oxytocin in response to patients’ negative emotions may represent activation of the therapists’ caregiving system signaling the emergence of a healthy therapeutic interaction.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings suggest that therapists’ oxytocin responses could potentially serve as a biomarker of an effective therapeutic process,” the researchers write.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Hadar Fisher, department of psychology, University of Haifa, Israel, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample size, while one of the largest in studies looking at oxytocin in psychotherapy, still has limited statistical power. The study used post-session retrospective self-reports to measure negative emotions, which focused on patients’ experiences rather than expression of these emotions.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation. The authors report no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Evidence suggests patient experiences of negative emotions predict outcomes of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD), but mechanisms remain unclear.
- Researchers used a mediation model based on the role of oxytocin (OT) in attachment relationships, such as between parent and infant.
- They collected 435 oxytocin samples pre- and post-session from therapists of 62 patients receiving psychotherapy for MDD.
- Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) was administered to patients before sessions, and patients reported their in-session emotions.
TAKEAWAY:
- Higher negative emotion levels of patients predicted higher therapist oxytocin levels on the post-session assessment, when controlling for the pre-session oxytocin (“a” path [same-session path between negative affect and OT levels]: 0.11; standard error, 0.05; P = 03; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.20)
- Higher therapist oxytocin levels predicted lower depression severity in the next session (“b” path [time-lagged association between post-session OT levels and depression severity]: –0.97; SE, 0.34; P = .005; 95 % CI, –1.57 to –0.22)
- An increase in therapists’ oxytocin in response to patients’ negative emotions may represent activation of the therapists’ caregiving system signaling the emergence of a healthy therapeutic interaction.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings suggest that therapists’ oxytocin responses could potentially serve as a biomarker of an effective therapeutic process,” the researchers write.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Hadar Fisher, department of psychology, University of Haifa, Israel, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample size, while one of the largest in studies looking at oxytocin in psychotherapy, still has limited statistical power. The study used post-session retrospective self-reports to measure negative emotions, which focused on patients’ experiences rather than expression of these emotions.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation. The authors report no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.