Mental Health

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fundamentally, an immigrant parent’s traditional role as teacher of culture and social systems to their children is undermined by immigration. In their native country, they learned throughout their life cultural norms and systems that defined their environment. When these parents immigrate to a new country, their different set of knowledge may not be applicable in many ways to their new environment.

The Disruption of Social Roles

Culturally, language is one of the most important types of knowledge parents pass to their children. Nearly half of adult immigrants in the United States have limited English proficiency. ¹

Their children often learn the language faster, often placing these children in the position of interpreters for their parents. These parents can become dependent on their children to negotiate social structures instead of vice versa, potentially undermining the social hierarchy and role of parenting. ² Both Mr. Contreras and Dr. Nguyen recall that as children of immigrant parents — from Mexico and Vietnam, respectively — they commanded English better than their parents, which often made them take on more “adult roles.” For example, Dr. Nguyen recalls that his mother would solicit his help in grocery shopping because she could neither navigate the aisles effectively nor ask for help. Mr. Contreras commonly found himself acting as an impromptu medical translator for his mother on several occasions. This dependence of immigrant parents on their children for guidance in their host country can be pervasive in other social structures such as legal and academic.

Impact on School

Potentially, an immigrant parent’s lack of knowledge of the language and systems of their host country can make them ineffective advocates for their children at school. Mr. Contreras’s intervention for his patient as a medical student demonstrates this in the arena of school.

Mr. Contreras was rotating at a hospital burn unit in 2023 when R, a young middle school student, and his mother arrived in the emergency department. An incident had occurred at his school. R had been the victim of aggravated battery and assault, sustaining a 3x2 cm burn on his forearm from students placing hot glue onto a piece of cardboard then immediately onto his skin and silencing him by covering his mouth. For months the older students had been bullying R. R’s mother made multiple attempts with both the school’s front desk and counselors to address the issue, but to no avail. R himself, though encouraged to speak up, did not out of fear. As Mr. Contreras realized the situation and the impasse, he used his fluency in Spanish and English to facilitate a joint call with the school district. Within 10 minutes, they were able to connect with a student safety specialist and launch a full investigation. A language barrier and the lack of knowledge of their rights and school system had prevented R’s mother from effectively advocating for her child’s safety.

In Dr. Nguyen’s experience as a teacher, even in classrooms dominated by minority students, the advocacy for students struggling in classes was disproportionate. It favored White parents, but also generally more educated families. This is further supported by a study of 225 schools across six states of kindergarten children showing similar trends, that African American, Latino, and less-educated parents were less involved in their children’s education as reported by teachers.³ It is important to note that in this study teachers were 80% White, 9% Latino, 7% African American, 3% multiracial, and 1% Asian American, suggesting that cultural discrepancy between teachers and parents could be an important factor affecting parent-teacher communication. Dr. Nguyen also recalled trying to discipline several students who were disruptive in his class by telling them he would speak to their parents. Several times, these students would counter defiantly, “Well, good luck, they can’t speak English.” The parents’ dependency on their children to communicate with teachers undermined the abilities of both adults to manage their behaviors and promote learning.
 

The Mental Health of Immigrant Parents  

Migrants often have greater incidence of mental health problems, including depression, PTSD, and anxiety, from a combination of peri-migrational experiences. ⁴ Immigrant mothers are known to have higher rates of post-natal depression, which cause problems later with child development. ⁵ Though she warns larger studies are needed, Dr. Fazel’s review of Croatian refugees suggests that displacement from one’s native country is a risk factor for poorer mental health, namely due to difficulty in psychosocial adaptation. ⁶ The likely mechanism is that lack of access to one’s language and culture, or a language and culture that one can navigate effectively, exacerbates, even engenders mental health sequelae. Because of this, first-generation immigrant children often face harsher and more violent parenting. ^7,8 Immigrant parents also may have less access to mental health resources since they often resort to their own cultural practices. Both Mr. Contreras’s and Dr. Nguyen’s following narratives of their mothers’ struggle with mental health illustrate the causes and consequences.

Mr. Contreras, who grew up in a Mexican immigrant household in Los Angeles, saw firsthand how his mother, who faced language barriers and a distrust of Western medicine, turned to traditional healers and herbal remedies for her health needs. Accompanying her to doctor appointments as her translator, he often felt the disconnect between her cultural background and the Western medical system. For her, seeking help from traditional healers was not just about addressing physical ailments but also about finding comfort and familiarity in practices rooted in her cultural beliefs. This preference for cultural or religious methods for mental health support is not uncommon among Mexican immigrant families.

Dr. Nguyen, whose mother was a refugee from Vietnam, recalls her constant depressed mood and suicidal thoughts in the immediate years after she resettled in San Diego. This was caused mostly by the missing of her social supports in Vietnam, her difficulty adjusting to American culture and language, and her difficulty finding work. Often her depression and stress took a darker turn in terms of more violent parenting. Of course, the cause of her poor mental health is hard to parse from the traumas and violence she had faced as a refugee, but in subsequent years, her many brothers and sisters who immigrated through a more orderly process also displayed similar mental health vulnerabilities.

   

The Mental Health of Children of Immigrant Parents  

The relationship between an immigrant parent’s poor mental health and their children is difficult to parse from what we know about native parents and their children. But the primary differences appear to be a great disruption of social roles, the effects of migration itself, and the oftentimes more strict and disciplinarian parenting style as discussed above. Given this, one would expect immigrant children to suffer greater mental health difficulties. However, a recent study of almost 500,000 children in Canada revealed decreased prevalence of conduct disorder, ADHD, and mood and anxiety disorders in immigrant youth, both first- and second-generation, as compared to non-immigrants. ⁹ This perhaps surprising result highlights how much more we need to understand about the effects of culture on the mental health diagnosis of immigrant youth. It suggests differences in mental health access and use from the cultural factors we mentioned above, to problems with using Western-based mental criteria and symptomatology for diagnosing non-Western children. It can even suggest the underestimation of the protective effects of native culture such as strong ethnic identity and cultural support systems, thereby challenging a purely deficit mental health model of the immigrant experience.

Summary

Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras are both children of immigrant parents from Vietnam and Mexico, respectively. Dr. Nguyen spent 15 years as an English teacher at San Leandro High School, whose student body was roughly 50% Hispanic and 25% Asian, making immigrant parents a huge swath of his educational partners. Mr. Contreras founded a high school outreach program where he interacted with K-12 children of immigrant youth. In addition, he partners with Fresno’s Economic Opportunity Commission to educate immigrant Hispanic parents and their teens on having difficult conversations with their teenage children on topics such as mental and reproductive health. Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras will explore the differences in immigrant parent-child relationships, compared with native ones, as they relate to mental health ramifications for the child and parent. They reveal immigrant mental health disruptions regarding culture and language, familial hierarchies, parenting styles, as well as parental mental health sequelae brought about by immigration using research and their own personal experiences.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously. Mr. Contreras is currently a 4th-year medical student at University of California, San Francisco, and applying to Psychiatry for the 2025 match.

References  

1. Rao A et al. Five Key Facts About Immigrants With Limited English Proficiency. KFF. 2024 March 14. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief-five-key-facts-about-immigrants-with-limited-english-proficiency .

2. Raffaetà R. Migration and Parenting: Reviewing the Debate and Calling for Future Research. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care. 2016;12(1):38-50. doi: 10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2014-0052/full/html .

3. Nzinga‐Johnson S et al. Teacher‐Parent Relationships and School Involvement Among Racially and Educationally Diverse Parents of Kindergartners. Elementary School Journal. 2009 Sept. doi: 10.1086/598844 .

4. Close C et al. The Mental Health and Wellbeing of First Generation Migrants: A Systematic-Narrative Review of Reviews. Global Health. 2016 Aug 25;12(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0187-3.

5. Collins CH et al. Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Immigrant Women and Postnatal Depression: Rates and Risk Factors. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011 Feb;14(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00737-010-0198-7 .

6. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5 .

7. Pottie K et al. Do First Generation Immigrant Adolescents Face Higher Rates of Bullying, Violence and Suicidal Behaviours Than Do Third Generation and Native Born? J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Oct;17(5):1557-1566. doi: 10.1007/s10903-014-0108-6.

8. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML. Acculturation and Aggression in Latino Adolescents: A Structural Model Focusing on Cultural Risk Factors and Assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006 Oct;34(5):659-673. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9049-4 .

9. Gadermann AM et al. Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders Among Immigrant, Refugee, and Nonimmigrant Children and Youth in British Columbia, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2144934. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44934 .

Fundamentally, an immigrant parent’s traditional role as teacher of culture and social systems to their children is undermined by immigration. In their native country, they learned throughout their life cultural norms and systems that defined their environment. When these parents immigrate to a new country, their different set of knowledge may not be applicable in many ways to their new environment.

The Disruption of Social Roles

Culturally, language is one of the most important types of knowledge parents pass to their children. Nearly half of adult immigrants in the United States have limited English proficiency. ¹

Their children often learn the language faster, often placing these children in the position of interpreters for their parents. These parents can become dependent on their children to negotiate social structures instead of vice versa, potentially undermining the social hierarchy and role of parenting. ² Both Mr. Contreras and Dr. Nguyen recall that as children of immigrant parents — from Mexico and Vietnam, respectively — they commanded English better than their parents, which often made them take on more “adult roles.” For example, Dr. Nguyen recalls that his mother would solicit his help in grocery shopping because she could neither navigate the aisles effectively nor ask for help. Mr. Contreras commonly found himself acting as an impromptu medical translator for his mother on several occasions. This dependence of immigrant parents on their children for guidance in their host country can be pervasive in other social structures such as legal and academic.

Impact on School

Potentially, an immigrant parent’s lack of knowledge of the language and systems of their host country can make them ineffective advocates for their children at school. Mr. Contreras’s intervention for his patient as a medical student demonstrates this in the arena of school.

Mr. Contreras was rotating at a hospital burn unit in 2023 when R, a young middle school student, and his mother arrived in the emergency department. An incident had occurred at his school. R had been the victim of aggravated battery and assault, sustaining a 3x2 cm burn on his forearm from students placing hot glue onto a piece of cardboard then immediately onto his skin and silencing him by covering his mouth. For months the older students had been bullying R. R’s mother made multiple attempts with both the school’s front desk and counselors to address the issue, but to no avail. R himself, though encouraged to speak up, did not out of fear. As Mr. Contreras realized the situation and the impasse, he used his fluency in Spanish and English to facilitate a joint call with the school district. Within 10 minutes, they were able to connect with a student safety specialist and launch a full investigation. A language barrier and the lack of knowledge of their rights and school system had prevented R’s mother from effectively advocating for her child’s safety.

In Dr. Nguyen’s experience as a teacher, even in classrooms dominated by minority students, the advocacy for students struggling in classes was disproportionate. It favored White parents, but also generally more educated families. This is further supported by a study of 225 schools across six states of kindergarten children showing similar trends, that African American, Latino, and less-educated parents were less involved in their children’s education as reported by teachers.³ It is important to note that in this study teachers were 80% White, 9% Latino, 7% African American, 3% multiracial, and 1% Asian American, suggesting that cultural discrepancy between teachers and parents could be an important factor affecting parent-teacher communication. Dr. Nguyen also recalled trying to discipline several students who were disruptive in his class by telling them he would speak to their parents. Several times, these students would counter defiantly, “Well, good luck, they can’t speak English.” The parents’ dependency on their children to communicate with teachers undermined the abilities of both adults to manage their behaviors and promote learning.
 

The Mental Health of Immigrant Parents  

Migrants often have greater incidence of mental health problems, including depression, PTSD, and anxiety, from a combination of peri-migrational experiences. ⁴ Immigrant mothers are known to have higher rates of post-natal depression, which cause problems later with child development. ⁵ Though she warns larger studies are needed, Dr. Fazel’s review of Croatian refugees suggests that displacement from one’s native country is a risk factor for poorer mental health, namely due to difficulty in psychosocial adaptation. ⁶ The likely mechanism is that lack of access to one’s language and culture, or a language and culture that one can navigate effectively, exacerbates, even engenders mental health sequelae. Because of this, first-generation immigrant children often face harsher and more violent parenting. ^7,8 Immigrant parents also may have less access to mental health resources since they often resort to their own cultural practices. Both Mr. Contreras’s and Dr. Nguyen’s following narratives of their mothers’ struggle with mental health illustrate the causes and consequences.

Mr. Contreras, who grew up in a Mexican immigrant household in Los Angeles, saw firsthand how his mother, who faced language barriers and a distrust of Western medicine, turned to traditional healers and herbal remedies for her health needs. Accompanying her to doctor appointments as her translator, he often felt the disconnect between her cultural background and the Western medical system. For her, seeking help from traditional healers was not just about addressing physical ailments but also about finding comfort and familiarity in practices rooted in her cultural beliefs. This preference for cultural or religious methods for mental health support is not uncommon among Mexican immigrant families.

Dr. Nguyen, whose mother was a refugee from Vietnam, recalls her constant depressed mood and suicidal thoughts in the immediate years after she resettled in San Diego. This was caused mostly by the missing of her social supports in Vietnam, her difficulty adjusting to American culture and language, and her difficulty finding work. Often her depression and stress took a darker turn in terms of more violent parenting. Of course, the cause of her poor mental health is hard to parse from the traumas and violence she had faced as a refugee, but in subsequent years, her many brothers and sisters who immigrated through a more orderly process also displayed similar mental health vulnerabilities.

   

The Mental Health of Children of Immigrant Parents  

The relationship between an immigrant parent’s poor mental health and their children is difficult to parse from what we know about native parents and their children. But the primary differences appear to be a great disruption of social roles, the effects of migration itself, and the oftentimes more strict and disciplinarian parenting style as discussed above. Given this, one would expect immigrant children to suffer greater mental health difficulties. However, a recent study of almost 500,000 children in Canada revealed decreased prevalence of conduct disorder, ADHD, and mood and anxiety disorders in immigrant youth, both first- and second-generation, as compared to non-immigrants. ⁹ This perhaps surprising result highlights how much more we need to understand about the effects of culture on the mental health diagnosis of immigrant youth. It suggests differences in mental health access and use from the cultural factors we mentioned above, to problems with using Western-based mental criteria and symptomatology for diagnosing non-Western children. It can even suggest the underestimation of the protective effects of native culture such as strong ethnic identity and cultural support systems, thereby challenging a purely deficit mental health model of the immigrant experience.

Summary

Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras are both children of immigrant parents from Vietnam and Mexico, respectively. Dr. Nguyen spent 15 years as an English teacher at San Leandro High School, whose student body was roughly 50% Hispanic and 25% Asian, making immigrant parents a huge swath of his educational partners. Mr. Contreras founded a high school outreach program where he interacted with K-12 children of immigrant youth. In addition, he partners with Fresno’s Economic Opportunity Commission to educate immigrant Hispanic parents and their teens on having difficult conversations with their teenage children on topics such as mental and reproductive health. Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras will explore the differences in immigrant parent-child relationships, compared with native ones, as they relate to mental health ramifications for the child and parent. They reveal immigrant mental health disruptions regarding culture and language, familial hierarchies, parenting styles, as well as parental mental health sequelae brought about by immigration using research and their own personal experiences.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously. Mr. Contreras is currently a 4th-year medical student at University of California, San Francisco, and applying to Psychiatry for the 2025 match.

References  

1. Rao A et al. Five Key Facts About Immigrants With Limited English Proficiency. KFF. 2024 March 14. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief-five-key-facts-about-immigrants-with-limited-english-proficiency .

2. Raffaetà R. Migration and Parenting: Reviewing the Debate and Calling for Future Research. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care. 2016;12(1):38-50. doi: 10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2014-0052/full/html .

3. Nzinga‐Johnson S et al. Teacher‐Parent Relationships and School Involvement Among Racially and Educationally Diverse Parents of Kindergartners. Elementary School Journal. 2009 Sept. doi: 10.1086/598844 .

4. Close C et al. The Mental Health and Wellbeing of First Generation Migrants: A Systematic-Narrative Review of Reviews. Global Health. 2016 Aug 25;12(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0187-3.

5. Collins CH et al. Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Immigrant Women and Postnatal Depression: Rates and Risk Factors. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011 Feb;14(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00737-010-0198-7 .

6. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5 .

7. Pottie K et al. Do First Generation Immigrant Adolescents Face Higher Rates of Bullying, Violence and Suicidal Behaviours Than Do Third Generation and Native Born? J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Oct;17(5):1557-1566. doi: 10.1007/s10903-014-0108-6.

8. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML. Acculturation and Aggression in Latino Adolescents: A Structural Model Focusing on Cultural Risk Factors and Assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006 Oct;34(5):659-673. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9049-4 .

9. Gadermann AM et al. Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders Among Immigrant, Refugee, and Nonimmigrant Children and Youth in British Columbia, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2144934. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44934 .

Fundamentally, an immigrant parent’s traditional role as teacher of culture and social systems to their children is undermined by immigration. In their native country, they learned throughout their life cultural norms and systems that defined their environment. When these parents immigrate to a new country, their different set of knowledge may not be applicable in many ways to their new environment.

The Disruption of Social Roles

Culturally, language is one of the most important types of knowledge parents pass to their children. Nearly half of adult immigrants in the United States have limited English proficiency. ¹

Their children often learn the language faster, often placing these children in the position of interpreters for their parents. These parents can become dependent on their children to negotiate social structures instead of vice versa, potentially undermining the social hierarchy and role of parenting. ² Both Mr. Contreras and Dr. Nguyen recall that as children of immigrant parents — from Mexico and Vietnam, respectively — they commanded English better than their parents, which often made them take on more “adult roles.” For example, Dr. Nguyen recalls that his mother would solicit his help in grocery shopping because she could neither navigate the aisles effectively nor ask for help. Mr. Contreras commonly found himself acting as an impromptu medical translator for his mother on several occasions. This dependence of immigrant parents on their children for guidance in their host country can be pervasive in other social structures such as legal and academic.

Impact on School

Potentially, an immigrant parent’s lack of knowledge of the language and systems of their host country can make them ineffective advocates for their children at school. Mr. Contreras’s intervention for his patient as a medical student demonstrates this in the arena of school.

Mr. Contreras was rotating at a hospital burn unit in 2023 when R, a young middle school student, and his mother arrived in the emergency department. An incident had occurred at his school. R had been the victim of aggravated battery and assault, sustaining a 3x2 cm burn on his forearm from students placing hot glue onto a piece of cardboard then immediately onto his skin and silencing him by covering his mouth. For months the older students had been bullying R. R’s mother made multiple attempts with both the school’s front desk and counselors to address the issue, but to no avail. R himself, though encouraged to speak up, did not out of fear. As Mr. Contreras realized the situation and the impasse, he used his fluency in Spanish and English to facilitate a joint call with the school district. Within 10 minutes, they were able to connect with a student safety specialist and launch a full investigation. A language barrier and the lack of knowledge of their rights and school system had prevented R’s mother from effectively advocating for her child’s safety.

In Dr. Nguyen’s experience as a teacher, even in classrooms dominated by minority students, the advocacy for students struggling in classes was disproportionate. It favored White parents, but also generally more educated families. This is further supported by a study of 225 schools across six states of kindergarten children showing similar trends, that African American, Latino, and less-educated parents were less involved in their children’s education as reported by teachers.³ It is important to note that in this study teachers were 80% White, 9% Latino, 7% African American, 3% multiracial, and 1% Asian American, suggesting that cultural discrepancy between teachers and parents could be an important factor affecting parent-teacher communication. Dr. Nguyen also recalled trying to discipline several students who were disruptive in his class by telling them he would speak to their parents. Several times, these students would counter defiantly, “Well, good luck, they can’t speak English.” The parents’ dependency on their children to communicate with teachers undermined the abilities of both adults to manage their behaviors and promote learning.
 

The Mental Health of Immigrant Parents  

Migrants often have greater incidence of mental health problems, including depression, PTSD, and anxiety, from a combination of peri-migrational experiences. ⁴ Immigrant mothers are known to have higher rates of post-natal depression, which cause problems later with child development. ⁵ Though she warns larger studies are needed, Dr. Fazel’s review of Croatian refugees suggests that displacement from one’s native country is a risk factor for poorer mental health, namely due to difficulty in psychosocial adaptation. ⁶ The likely mechanism is that lack of access to one’s language and culture, or a language and culture that one can navigate effectively, exacerbates, even engenders mental health sequelae. Because of this, first-generation immigrant children often face harsher and more violent parenting. ^7,8 Immigrant parents also may have less access to mental health resources since they often resort to their own cultural practices. Both Mr. Contreras’s and Dr. Nguyen’s following narratives of their mothers’ struggle with mental health illustrate the causes and consequences.

Mr. Contreras, who grew up in a Mexican immigrant household in Los Angeles, saw firsthand how his mother, who faced language barriers and a distrust of Western medicine, turned to traditional healers and herbal remedies for her health needs. Accompanying her to doctor appointments as her translator, he often felt the disconnect between her cultural background and the Western medical system. For her, seeking help from traditional healers was not just about addressing physical ailments but also about finding comfort and familiarity in practices rooted in her cultural beliefs. This preference for cultural or religious methods for mental health support is not uncommon among Mexican immigrant families.

Dr. Nguyen, whose mother was a refugee from Vietnam, recalls her constant depressed mood and suicidal thoughts in the immediate years after she resettled in San Diego. This was caused mostly by the missing of her social supports in Vietnam, her difficulty adjusting to American culture and language, and her difficulty finding work. Often her depression and stress took a darker turn in terms of more violent parenting. Of course, the cause of her poor mental health is hard to parse from the traumas and violence she had faced as a refugee, but in subsequent years, her many brothers and sisters who immigrated through a more orderly process also displayed similar mental health vulnerabilities.

   

The Mental Health of Children of Immigrant Parents  

The relationship between an immigrant parent’s poor mental health and their children is difficult to parse from what we know about native parents and their children. But the primary differences appear to be a great disruption of social roles, the effects of migration itself, and the oftentimes more strict and disciplinarian parenting style as discussed above. Given this, one would expect immigrant children to suffer greater mental health difficulties. However, a recent study of almost 500,000 children in Canada revealed decreased prevalence of conduct disorder, ADHD, and mood and anxiety disorders in immigrant youth, both first- and second-generation, as compared to non-immigrants. ⁹ This perhaps surprising result highlights how much more we need to understand about the effects of culture on the mental health diagnosis of immigrant youth. It suggests differences in mental health access and use from the cultural factors we mentioned above, to problems with using Western-based mental criteria and symptomatology for diagnosing non-Western children. It can even suggest the underestimation of the protective effects of native culture such as strong ethnic identity and cultural support systems, thereby challenging a purely deficit mental health model of the immigrant experience.

Summary

Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras are both children of immigrant parents from Vietnam and Mexico, respectively. Dr. Nguyen spent 15 years as an English teacher at San Leandro High School, whose student body was roughly 50% Hispanic and 25% Asian, making immigrant parents a huge swath of his educational partners. Mr. Contreras founded a high school outreach program where he interacted with K-12 children of immigrant youth. In addition, he partners with Fresno’s Economic Opportunity Commission to educate immigrant Hispanic parents and their teens on having difficult conversations with their teenage children on topics such as mental and reproductive health. Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras will explore the differences in immigrant parent-child relationships, compared with native ones, as they relate to mental health ramifications for the child and parent. They reveal immigrant mental health disruptions regarding culture and language, familial hierarchies, parenting styles, as well as parental mental health sequelae brought about by immigration using research and their own personal experiences.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously. Mr. Contreras is currently a 4th-year medical student at University of California, San Francisco, and applying to Psychiatry for the 2025 match.

References  

1. Rao A et al. Five Key Facts About Immigrants With Limited English Proficiency. KFF. 2024 March 14. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief-five-key-facts-about-immigrants-with-limited-english-proficiency .

2. Raffaetà R. Migration and Parenting: Reviewing the Debate and Calling for Future Research. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care. 2016;12(1):38-50. doi: 10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2014-0052/full/html .

3. Nzinga‐Johnson S et al. Teacher‐Parent Relationships and School Involvement Among Racially and Educationally Diverse Parents of Kindergartners. Elementary School Journal. 2009 Sept. doi: 10.1086/598844 .

4. Close C et al. The Mental Health and Wellbeing of First Generation Migrants: A Systematic-Narrative Review of Reviews. Global Health. 2016 Aug 25;12(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0187-3.

5. Collins CH et al. Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Immigrant Women and Postnatal Depression: Rates and Risk Factors. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011 Feb;14(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00737-010-0198-7 .

6. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5 .

7. Pottie K et al. Do First Generation Immigrant Adolescents Face Higher Rates of Bullying, Violence and Suicidal Behaviours Than Do Third Generation and Native Born? J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Oct;17(5):1557-1566. doi: 10.1007/s10903-014-0108-6.

8. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML. Acculturation and Aggression in Latino Adolescents: A Structural Model Focusing on Cultural Risk Factors and Assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006 Oct;34(5):659-673. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9049-4 .

9. Gadermann AM et al. Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders Among Immigrant, Refugee, and Nonimmigrant Children and Youth in British Columbia, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2144934. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44934 .

I am going to guess that if we asked 500,000 adults in this country if they felt that children and adolescents were spending too much time on their smartphones, we would elicit almost uniform agreement that, yes indeed, smartphone use is gobbling up too much time from our young people. And, the adults would volunteer a long laundry list of all the bad consequences this overuse was generating. If you ask this same sample of adults if they too were spending too much time on their smartphones they would answer yes and, again, give you a list of the problems they feel are the result of this overuse.

We might begin to find a scattering of responses if we ask the adults when a child is too young to have his/her own cell phone. But, they would all agree that “young children” weren’t ready to be trusted with a cell phone. The “when” they were ready would be up for discussion. However, I suspect we might see a clustering around age 10 years. The reality is that despite what the majority may believe, a 2022 survey found that 42% of children have a cell phone by age 10, 71% by age 12, and 91% by age 14.

So, it would appear that, while we believe there can be significant downsides to having a cell phone, we are having great difficulty in policing ourselves and creating limits for our children. Does cell phone use qualify as an addiction, or is it just another example of how adults have lost the ability to say “no” to themselves and to their children?

When it comes to cell phones in school, the situation gets increasingly murky. The teachers I speak with are very clear that cell phones are creating problems for both the academic and the social experiences of their students. One teacher referred me to an article from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which found that banning cell phones in school decreased the incidence of psychological symptoms and diseases in girls. Bullying decreased in both genders and the girls’ GPA scores improved. In schools with cell phone bans, girls were more likely to choose and attend academic track programs, an effect which was more pronounced in young women with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. But, the if, when, and how to institute smartphone bans in school is complicated.

On one front, the movement toward cell phone bans in school has been given a major boost with the publication and publicity of a new book titled The Anxious Generation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, PhD. The New York University professor sees the GenZ’ers as experiencing a tsunami of mental health challenges including anxiety, self-harm, and suicide. And, he lays much of the blame for this situation on cell phone use.

He is optimistic about turning the tide because he claims that everywhere he speaks about the problem he says “I feel that I’m pushing on open doors.” Comparing the phenomenon to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Dr. Haidt says “When you have a system that everyone hates, and then you have a way to escape it, it can change in a year.”

I wish I could share in his optimism, although I did just encounter a news story in the Portland paper describing a national program called “Wait Until 8th,” which is being considered by a parents’ group here in Maine.

The usual suspects have their own predictable take on the issue. The House and Senate have proposed a study on the use of cell phones in elementary and secondary schools and a pilot program awarding grants to some schools to create mobile device–free environments. Sounds like a momentum killer to me.

Not surprisingly, the issue of cell phone bans in school has taken on a bit of a political odor. The National Parents Union reports in a very small and inadequately described sample that 56% of parents are against total school bans. In the accompanying press release, the organizations offers an extensive list of concerns parents have reported — many cite the need to remain in contact with their children throughout the day. One has to wonder how often these concerns are a reflection of unresolved separation anxiety.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rolled out a “5 Cs” framework that pediatricians can use to discuss media use with families. As usual, the thought is that talking about a problem is going to somehow convince parents to do what they already know is the correct action. And, of course, pediatricians have plenty of time to initiate this discussion of the obvious.

A recent study from the Department of Pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco, has found that parental monitoring, limit setting, and modeling good screen use behavior (my bolding) are the most effective strategies for reducing adolescent screen time. Using screen time allowances as a reward or punishment does not seem to be effective.

So there you have it. It looks like cell phone overuse, particularly in school, is something most of us see as a problem deserving an immediate solution. However, despite Dr. Haidt’s optimism about a seismic turnaround, I suspect it will more likely be guerrilla warfare — one family, one school, or one school district at a time.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I am going to guess that if we asked 500,000 adults in this country if they felt that children and adolescents were spending too much time on their smartphones, we would elicit almost uniform agreement that, yes indeed, smartphone use is gobbling up too much time from our young people. And, the adults would volunteer a long laundry list of all the bad consequences this overuse was generating. If you ask this same sample of adults if they too were spending too much time on their smartphones they would answer yes and, again, give you a list of the problems they feel are the result of this overuse.

We might begin to find a scattering of responses if we ask the adults when a child is too young to have his/her own cell phone. But, they would all agree that “young children” weren’t ready to be trusted with a cell phone. The “when” they were ready would be up for discussion. However, I suspect we might see a clustering around age 10 years. The reality is that despite what the majority may believe, a 2022 survey found that 42% of children have a cell phone by age 10, 71% by age 12, and 91% by age 14.

So, it would appear that, while we believe there can be significant downsides to having a cell phone, we are having great difficulty in policing ourselves and creating limits for our children. Does cell phone use qualify as an addiction, or is it just another example of how adults have lost the ability to say “no” to themselves and to their children?

When it comes to cell phones in school, the situation gets increasingly murky. The teachers I speak with are very clear that cell phones are creating problems for both the academic and the social experiences of their students. One teacher referred me to an article from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which found that banning cell phones in school decreased the incidence of psychological symptoms and diseases in girls. Bullying decreased in both genders and the girls’ GPA scores improved. In schools with cell phone bans, girls were more likely to choose and attend academic track programs, an effect which was more pronounced in young women with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. But, the if, when, and how to institute smartphone bans in school is complicated.

On one front, the movement toward cell phone bans in school has been given a major boost with the publication and publicity of a new book titled The Anxious Generation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, PhD. The New York University professor sees the GenZ’ers as experiencing a tsunami of mental health challenges including anxiety, self-harm, and suicide. And, he lays much of the blame for this situation on cell phone use.

He is optimistic about turning the tide because he claims that everywhere he speaks about the problem he says “I feel that I’m pushing on open doors.” Comparing the phenomenon to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Dr. Haidt says “When you have a system that everyone hates, and then you have a way to escape it, it can change in a year.”

I wish I could share in his optimism, although I did just encounter a news story in the Portland paper describing a national program called “Wait Until 8th,” which is being considered by a parents’ group here in Maine.

The usual suspects have their own predictable take on the issue. The House and Senate have proposed a study on the use of cell phones in elementary and secondary schools and a pilot program awarding grants to some schools to create mobile device–free environments. Sounds like a momentum killer to me.

Not surprisingly, the issue of cell phone bans in school has taken on a bit of a political odor. The National Parents Union reports in a very small and inadequately described sample that 56% of parents are against total school bans. In the accompanying press release, the organizations offers an extensive list of concerns parents have reported — many cite the need to remain in contact with their children throughout the day. One has to wonder how often these concerns are a reflection of unresolved separation anxiety.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rolled out a “5 Cs” framework that pediatricians can use to discuss media use with families. As usual, the thought is that talking about a problem is going to somehow convince parents to do what they already know is the correct action. And, of course, pediatricians have plenty of time to initiate this discussion of the obvious.

A recent study from the Department of Pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco, has found that parental monitoring, limit setting, and modeling good screen use behavior (my bolding) are the most effective strategies for reducing adolescent screen time. Using screen time allowances as a reward or punishment does not seem to be effective.

So there you have it. It looks like cell phone overuse, particularly in school, is something most of us see as a problem deserving an immediate solution. However, despite Dr. Haidt’s optimism about a seismic turnaround, I suspect it will more likely be guerrilla warfare — one family, one school, or one school district at a time.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I am going to guess that if we asked 500,000 adults in this country if they felt that children and adolescents were spending too much time on their smartphones, we would elicit almost uniform agreement that, yes indeed, smartphone use is gobbling up too much time from our young people. And, the adults would volunteer a long laundry list of all the bad consequences this overuse was generating. If you ask this same sample of adults if they too were spending too much time on their smartphones they would answer yes and, again, give you a list of the problems they feel are the result of this overuse.

We might begin to find a scattering of responses if we ask the adults when a child is too young to have his/her own cell phone. But, they would all agree that “young children” weren’t ready to be trusted with a cell phone. The “when” they were ready would be up for discussion. However, I suspect we might see a clustering around age 10 years. The reality is that despite what the majority may believe, a 2022 survey found that 42% of children have a cell phone by age 10, 71% by age 12, and 91% by age 14.

So, it would appear that, while we believe there can be significant downsides to having a cell phone, we are having great difficulty in policing ourselves and creating limits for our children. Does cell phone use qualify as an addiction, or is it just another example of how adults have lost the ability to say “no” to themselves and to their children?

When it comes to cell phones in school, the situation gets increasingly murky. The teachers I speak with are very clear that cell phones are creating problems for both the academic and the social experiences of their students. One teacher referred me to an article from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which found that banning cell phones in school decreased the incidence of psychological symptoms and diseases in girls. Bullying decreased in both genders and the girls’ GPA scores improved. In schools with cell phone bans, girls were more likely to choose and attend academic track programs, an effect which was more pronounced in young women with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. But, the if, when, and how to institute smartphone bans in school is complicated.

On one front, the movement toward cell phone bans in school has been given a major boost with the publication and publicity of a new book titled The Anxious Generation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, PhD. The New York University professor sees the GenZ’ers as experiencing a tsunami of mental health challenges including anxiety, self-harm, and suicide. And, he lays much of the blame for this situation on cell phone use.

He is optimistic about turning the tide because he claims that everywhere he speaks about the problem he says “I feel that I’m pushing on open doors.” Comparing the phenomenon to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Dr. Haidt says “When you have a system that everyone hates, and then you have a way to escape it, it can change in a year.”

I wish I could share in his optimism, although I did just encounter a news story in the Portland paper describing a national program called “Wait Until 8th,” which is being considered by a parents’ group here in Maine.

The usual suspects have their own predictable take on the issue. The House and Senate have proposed a study on the use of cell phones in elementary and secondary schools and a pilot program awarding grants to some schools to create mobile device–free environments. Sounds like a momentum killer to me.

Not surprisingly, the issue of cell phone bans in school has taken on a bit of a political odor. The National Parents Union reports in a very small and inadequately described sample that 56% of parents are against total school bans. In the accompanying press release, the organizations offers an extensive list of concerns parents have reported — many cite the need to remain in contact with their children throughout the day. One has to wonder how often these concerns are a reflection of unresolved separation anxiety.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rolled out a “5 Cs” framework that pediatricians can use to discuss media use with families. As usual, the thought is that talking about a problem is going to somehow convince parents to do what they already know is the correct action. And, of course, pediatricians have plenty of time to initiate this discussion of the obvious.

A recent study from the Department of Pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco, has found that parental monitoring, limit setting, and modeling good screen use behavior (my bolding) are the most effective strategies for reducing adolescent screen time. Using screen time allowances as a reward or punishment does not seem to be effective.

So there you have it. It looks like cell phone overuse, particularly in school, is something most of us see as a problem deserving an immediate solution. However, despite Dr. Haidt’s optimism about a seismic turnaround, I suspect it will more likely be guerrilla warfare — one family, one school, or one school district at a time.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Taking antidepressants in midlife was not associated with an increased risk of subsequent Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or AD-related dementias (ADRD), data from a large prospective study of US veterans show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from 35,200 US veterans aged ≥ 55 years diagnosed with major depressive disorder from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2022, and followed them for ≤ 20 years to track subsequent AD/ADRD diagnoses.
• Health information was pulled from electronic health records of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse, and veterans had to be at the VHA for ≥ 1 year before diagnosis.
• Participants were considered to be exposed to an antidepressant when a prescription lasted ≥ 3 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 32,500 individuals were diagnosed with MDD. The mean age was 65 years, and 91% were men. 17,000 patients received antidepressants for a median duration of 4 years. Median follow-up time was 3.2 years.
• There was no significant association between antidepressant exposure and the risk for AD/ADRD (events = 1056; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08) vs no exposure.
• In a subgroup analysis, investigators found no significant link between different classes of antidepressants and dementia risk. These included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.
• Investigators emphasized the need for further research, particularly in populations with a larger representation of female patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“A possibility for the conflicting results in retrospective studies is that the heightened risk identified in participants on antidepressants may be attributed to depression itself, rather than the result of a potential pharmacological action. So, this and other clinical confounding factors need to be taken into account,” the investigators noted.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jaime Ramos-Cejudo, PhD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston. It was published online May 8 in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort’s relatively young age limited the number of dementia cases captured. Data from supplemental insurance, including Medicare, were not included, potentially limiting outcome capture.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Taking antidepressants in midlife was not associated with an increased risk of subsequent Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or AD-related dementias (ADRD), data from a large prospective study of US veterans show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from 35,200 US veterans aged ≥ 55 years diagnosed with major depressive disorder from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2022, and followed them for ≤ 20 years to track subsequent AD/ADRD diagnoses.
• Health information was pulled from electronic health records of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse, and veterans had to be at the VHA for ≥ 1 year before diagnosis.
• Participants were considered to be exposed to an antidepressant when a prescription lasted ≥ 3 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 32,500 individuals were diagnosed with MDD. The mean age was 65 years, and 91% were men. 17,000 patients received antidepressants for a median duration of 4 years. Median follow-up time was 3.2 years.
• There was no significant association between antidepressant exposure and the risk for AD/ADRD (events = 1056; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08) vs no exposure.
• In a subgroup analysis, investigators found no significant link between different classes of antidepressants and dementia risk. These included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.
• Investigators emphasized the need for further research, particularly in populations with a larger representation of female patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“A possibility for the conflicting results in retrospective studies is that the heightened risk identified in participants on antidepressants may be attributed to depression itself, rather than the result of a potential pharmacological action. So, this and other clinical confounding factors need to be taken into account,” the investigators noted.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jaime Ramos-Cejudo, PhD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston. It was published online May 8 in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort’s relatively young age limited the number of dementia cases captured. Data from supplemental insurance, including Medicare, were not included, potentially limiting outcome capture.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Taking antidepressants in midlife was not associated with an increased risk of subsequent Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or AD-related dementias (ADRD), data from a large prospective study of US veterans show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from 35,200 US veterans aged ≥ 55 years diagnosed with major depressive disorder from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2022, and followed them for ≤ 20 years to track subsequent AD/ADRD diagnoses.
• Health information was pulled from electronic health records of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse, and veterans had to be at the VHA for ≥ 1 year before diagnosis.
• Participants were considered to be exposed to an antidepressant when a prescription lasted ≥ 3 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 32,500 individuals were diagnosed with MDD. The mean age was 65 years, and 91% were men. 17,000 patients received antidepressants for a median duration of 4 years. Median follow-up time was 3.2 years.
• There was no significant association between antidepressant exposure and the risk for AD/ADRD (events = 1056; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08) vs no exposure.
• In a subgroup analysis, investigators found no significant link between different classes of antidepressants and dementia risk. These included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.
• Investigators emphasized the need for further research, particularly in populations with a larger representation of female patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“A possibility for the conflicting results in retrospective studies is that the heightened risk identified in participants on antidepressants may be attributed to depression itself, rather than the result of a potential pharmacological action. So, this and other clinical confounding factors need to be taken into account,” the investigators noted.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jaime Ramos-Cejudo, PhD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston. It was published online May 8 in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort’s relatively young age limited the number of dementia cases captured. Data from supplemental insurance, including Medicare, were not included, potentially limiting outcome capture.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rates among college students more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, new data showed. Rates of acute stress disorder (ASD) also increased during that time.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted five waves of cross-sectional study from 2017 to 2022, involving 392,377 participants across 332 colleges and universities.
• The study utilized the Healthy Minds Study data, ensuring representativeness by applying sample weights based on institutional demographics.
• Outcome variables were diagnoses of PTSD and ASD, confirmed by healthcare practitioners, with statistical analysis assessing change in odds of estimated prevalence during 2017-2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of PTSD among US college students increased from 3.4% in 2017-2018 to 7.5% in 2021-2022.
• ASD diagnoses also rose from 0.2% in 2017-2018 to 0.7% in 2021-2022, with both increases remaining statistically significant after adjusting for demographic differences.
• Investigators noted that these findings underscore the need for targeted, trauma-informed intervention strategies in college settings.

IN PRACTICE:

“These trends highlight the escalating mental health challenges among college students, which is consistent with recent research reporting a surge in psychiatric diagnoses,” the authors wrote. “Factors contributing to this rise may include pandemic-related stressors (eg, loss of loved ones) and the effect of traumatic events (eg, campus shootings and racial trauma),” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yusen Zhai, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported data and single questions for diagnosed PTSD and ASD may have limited the accuracy of the findings. The retrospective design and the absence of longitudinal follow-up may have restricted the ability to infer causality from the observed trends.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. No funding information was available.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rates among college students more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, new data showed. Rates of acute stress disorder (ASD) also increased during that time.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted five waves of cross-sectional study from 2017 to 2022, involving 392,377 participants across 332 colleges and universities.
• The study utilized the Healthy Minds Study data, ensuring representativeness by applying sample weights based on institutional demographics.
• Outcome variables were diagnoses of PTSD and ASD, confirmed by healthcare practitioners, with statistical analysis assessing change in odds of estimated prevalence during 2017-2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of PTSD among US college students increased from 3.4% in 2017-2018 to 7.5% in 2021-2022.
• ASD diagnoses also rose from 0.2% in 2017-2018 to 0.7% in 2021-2022, with both increases remaining statistically significant after adjusting for demographic differences.
• Investigators noted that these findings underscore the need for targeted, trauma-informed intervention strategies in college settings.

IN PRACTICE:

“These trends highlight the escalating mental health challenges among college students, which is consistent with recent research reporting a surge in psychiatric diagnoses,” the authors wrote. “Factors contributing to this rise may include pandemic-related stressors (eg, loss of loved ones) and the effect of traumatic events (eg, campus shootings and racial trauma),” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yusen Zhai, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported data and single questions for diagnosed PTSD and ASD may have limited the accuracy of the findings. The retrospective design and the absence of longitudinal follow-up may have restricted the ability to infer causality from the observed trends.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. No funding information was available.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rates among college students more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, new data showed. Rates of acute stress disorder (ASD) also increased during that time.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted five waves of cross-sectional study from 2017 to 2022, involving 392,377 participants across 332 colleges and universities.
• The study utilized the Healthy Minds Study data, ensuring representativeness by applying sample weights based on institutional demographics.
• Outcome variables were diagnoses of PTSD and ASD, confirmed by healthcare practitioners, with statistical analysis assessing change in odds of estimated prevalence during 2017-2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of PTSD among US college students increased from 3.4% in 2017-2018 to 7.5% in 2021-2022.
• ASD diagnoses also rose from 0.2% in 2017-2018 to 0.7% in 2021-2022, with both increases remaining statistically significant after adjusting for demographic differences.
• Investigators noted that these findings underscore the need for targeted, trauma-informed intervention strategies in college settings.

IN PRACTICE:

“These trends highlight the escalating mental health challenges among college students, which is consistent with recent research reporting a surge in psychiatric diagnoses,” the authors wrote. “Factors contributing to this rise may include pandemic-related stressors (eg, loss of loved ones) and the effect of traumatic events (eg, campus shootings and racial trauma),” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yusen Zhai, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported data and single questions for diagnosed PTSD and ASD may have limited the accuracy of the findings. The retrospective design and the absence of longitudinal follow-up may have restricted the ability to infer causality from the observed trends.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. No funding information was available.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.

“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”

The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Large, Longitudinal Study

To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.

Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.

They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.

Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.

Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.

When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.

A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).

After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).

Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
 

Vulnerability of the Developing Brain

The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”

They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.

Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.

“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”

Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.

“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”

The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Large, Longitudinal Study

To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.

Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.

They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.

Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.

Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.

When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.

A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).

After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).

Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
 

Vulnerability of the Developing Brain

The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”

They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.

Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.

“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”

Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.

“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”

The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Large, Longitudinal Study

To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.

Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.

They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.

Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.

Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.

When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.

A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).

After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).

Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
 

Vulnerability of the Developing Brain

The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”

They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.

Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.

“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”

Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms appears to be much lower than was previously thought, results from a new meta-analysis of studies assessing this issue showed.

After accounting for placebo effects, results showed that about 15% of patients who discontinue antidepressant therapy had true discontinuation symptoms, with severe symptoms occurring in about 2% of patients. 

“Considering all available data, we conservatively estimate that one out of every six to seven patients has truly pharmacologically-caused antidepressant discontinuation symptoms. This might still be an over-estimate, as it is difficult to factor in residual or re-emerging symptoms of depression or anxiety,” the researchers concluded. 

The study was published online in The Lancet.
 

More Reliable Data

“We are not saying all antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are a placebo effect. It is a real phenomenon. And we are not saying that there is no problem discontinuing antidepressants. But these findings suggest that true antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are lower than previous studies have suggested,” study investigator, Christopher Baethge, MD, University of Cologne, Germany, said at a Science Media Centre press briefing.

“Our data should de-emotionalize the debate on this issue. Yes, antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are a problem, but they should not cause undue alarm to patients or doctors,” Dr. Baethge added. 

Lead investigator, Jonathan Henssler, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, noted that “previous studies on this issue have included surveys which have selection bias in that people with symptoms antidepressant discontinuation are more likely to participate. This study includes a broader range of research and excluded surveys, so we believe these are more reliable results.” 
 

A Controversial Issue

The investigators note that antidepressant discontinuation symptoms can be highly variable and nonspecific, with the most frequently reported symptoms being dizziness, headache, nausea, insomnia, and irritability. These symptoms typically occur within a few days and are usually transient but can last up to several weeks or months.

Explaining the mechanism behind the phenomenon, Dr. Baethge noted that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants increase the available serotonin in the brain, but the body responds by reducing the number of serotonin receptors. If the amount of available serotonin is reduced after stopping the medication, then this can lead to discontinuation symptoms. 

However, the incidence and severity of these symptoms remains controversial, the researchers noted. They point out that some estimates suggest that antidepressant discontinuation symptoms occurred in the majority of patients (56%), with almost half of cases classed as severe. 

Previous attempts at assessment have been questioned on methodologic grounds especially because of inclusion of online surveys or other studies prone to selection and dissatisfaction bias.

“Medical professionals continue to hold polarized positions on the incidence and severity of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms, and the debate continues in public media,” they wrote.

This is the first publication of a larger project on antidepressant discontinuation symptoms.

For the study, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 44 controlled trials and 35 observational studies assessing the incidence of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms including a total of 21,002 patients. Of these, 16,532 patients discontinued antidepressant treatment, and 4470 patients discontinued placebo. 

Incidence of at least one antidepressant discontinuation symptom occurred in 31% of patients stopping antidepressant therapy and in 17% after discontinuation of placebo, giving a true rate of pharmacologic-driven antidepressant discontinuation symptoms of 14%-15%.

The study also showed that severe discontinuation symptoms occurred in 2.8% of those stopping antidepressants and in 0.6% of those stopping placebo, giving a true rate of severe antidepressant discontinuation symptoms of around 2%. 

There was no association with treatment duration or with pharmaceutical company funding, and different statistical analyses produced similar results, suggesting the findings are robust, Dr. Baethge reported.

 

Risks by Medication

Desvenlafaxine, venlafaxine, imipramine, and escitalopram were associated with higher frequency of discontinuation symptoms and imipramine, paroxetine, and either desvenlafaxine or venlafaxine were associated with a higher severity of symptoms.

Fluoxetine, sertraline, and citalopram had lower rates of discontinuation symptoms. No data were available for bupropion, mirtazapine, and amitriptyline.

As for the clinical implications of the findings, Dr. Henssler said that he does consider discontinuation symptoms when selecting a medication. “I would choose a drug with lower rate of these symptoms unless there was a specific reason to choose one with a higher rate,” he said. 

Dr. Henssler added that these data raise awareness of the placebo effect.

“Considering the placebo results, approximately half of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms could be attributable to expectation or non-specific symptoms,” the researchers noted.

“This is not to say all antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are caused by patient expectations; in practice, all patients discontinuing antidepressants need to be counseled and monitored, and patients who report antidepressant discontinuation symptoms must be helped, in particular those who develop severe antidepressant discontinuation symptoms,” they concluded.

 

Experts Weigh In

Commenting on the study at a press briefing, Oliver Howes, MD, chair of the psychopharmacology committee at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, United Kingdom, said that he welcomed “the insight that this robust study provides.”

“If someone chooses to stop taking their antidepressants, their doctor should help them to do so slowly and in a controlled manner that limits the impact of any potential withdrawal symptoms,” Dr. Howes said.

He added that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has produced a resource for patients and carers on stopping antidepressants that offers information on tapering medication at a pace that suits individual patient needs.

Also commenting, Tony Kendrick, MD, professor of primary care, University of Southampton, United Kingdom, pointed out some limitations of the new meta-analysis — in particular, that the method of assessment of discontinuation symptoms in the included studies was very variable, with specific measurement scales of discontinuation symptoms used in only six of the studies. 

“In most cases the assessment seemed to depend at least partly on the judgment of the authors of the included studies rather than being based on a systematic collection of data,” Dr. Kendrick added.

In an accompanying editorial, Glyn Lewis, PhD, and Gemma Lewis, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, wrote that though the meta-analysis has its limitations, including the fact that many of the studies were small, often use antidepressants that are not commonly used now, and studied people who had not taken the antidepressants for a very long time, “the results here are a substantial improvement on anything that has been published before.”

They emphasize the importance of discussing the issue of a placebo effect with patients when stopping antidepressants. 

The editorialists pointed out that as antidepressants are prescribed to many millions of people, the relatively uncommon severe withdrawal symptoms will still affect a substantial number of people. However, for individual clinicians, severe withdrawal symptoms will seem uncommon, and most patients will probably not be troubled by antidepressant withdrawal, especially when medication is tapered over a few weeks.

They noted that cessation of antidepressants can lead to an increase in depressive and anxious symptoms, and distinguishing between relapsing symptoms and withdrawal is difficult. 

“Short-term symptoms that reduce quickly, without intervention, are best thought of as a form of withdrawal, even if those symptoms might be similar or identical to the symptoms of depression and anxiety. More serious and longer-term symptoms might best be managed by tapering more slowly, or even deciding to remain on the antidepressant,” the editorialists wrote.

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Kendrick led the NIHR REDUCE trial of internet and telephone support for antidepressant discontinuation and was a member of the guideline committee for the NICE 2022 Depression Guideline.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms appears to be much lower than was previously thought, results from a new meta-analysis of studies assessing this issue showed.

After accounting for placebo effects, results showed that about 15% of patients who discontinue antidepressant therapy had true discontinuation symptoms, with severe symptoms occurring in about 2% of patients. 

“Considering all available data, we conservatively estimate that one out of every six to seven patients has truly pharmacologically-caused antidepressant discontinuation symptoms. This might still be an over-estimate, as it is difficult to factor in residual or re-emerging symptoms of depression or anxiety,” the researchers concluded. 

The study was published online in The Lancet.
 

More Reliable Data

“We are not saying all antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are a placebo effect. It is a real phenomenon. And we are not saying that there is no problem discontinuing antidepressants. But these findings suggest that true antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are lower than previous studies have suggested,” study investigator, Christopher Baethge, MD, University of Cologne, Germany, said at a Science Media Centre press briefing.

“Our data should de-emotionalize the debate on this issue. Yes, antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are a problem, but they should not cause undue alarm to patients or doctors,” Dr. Baethge added. 

Lead investigator, Jonathan Henssler, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, noted that “previous studies on this issue have included surveys which have selection bias in that people with symptoms antidepressant discontinuation are more likely to participate. This study includes a broader range of research and excluded surveys, so we believe these are more reliable results.” 
 

A Controversial Issue

The investigators note that antidepressant discontinuation symptoms can be highly variable and nonspecific, with the most frequently reported symptoms being dizziness, headache, nausea, insomnia, and irritability. These symptoms typically occur within a few days and are usually transient but can last up to several weeks or months.

Explaining the mechanism behind the phenomenon, Dr. Baethge noted that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants increase the available serotonin in the brain, but the body responds by reducing the number of serotonin receptors. If the amount of available serotonin is reduced after stopping the medication, then this can lead to discontinuation symptoms. 

However, the incidence and severity of these symptoms remains controversial, the researchers noted. They point out that some estimates suggest that antidepressant discontinuation symptoms occurred in the majority of patients (56%), with almost half of cases classed as severe. 

Previous attempts at assessment have been questioned on methodologic grounds especially because of inclusion of online surveys or other studies prone to selection and dissatisfaction bias.

“Medical professionals continue to hold polarized positions on the incidence and severity of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms, and the debate continues in public media,” they wrote.

This is the first publication of a larger project on antidepressant discontinuation symptoms.

For the study, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 44 controlled trials and 35 observational studies assessing the incidence of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms including a total of 21,002 patients. Of these, 16,532 patients discontinued antidepressant treatment, and 4470 patients discontinued placebo. 

Incidence of at least one antidepressant discontinuation symptom occurred in 31% of patients stopping antidepressant therapy and in 17% after discontinuation of placebo, giving a true rate of pharmacologic-driven antidepressant discontinuation symptoms of 14%-15%.

The study also showed that severe discontinuation symptoms occurred in 2.8% of those stopping antidepressants and in 0.6% of those stopping placebo, giving a true rate of severe antidepressant discontinuation symptoms of around 2%. 

There was no association with treatment duration or with pharmaceutical company funding, and different statistical analyses produced similar results, suggesting the findings are robust, Dr. Baethge reported.

 

Risks by Medication

Desvenlafaxine, venlafaxine, imipramine, and escitalopram were associated with higher frequency of discontinuation symptoms and imipramine, paroxetine, and either desvenlafaxine or venlafaxine were associated with a higher severity of symptoms.

Fluoxetine, sertraline, and citalopram had lower rates of discontinuation symptoms. No data were available for bupropion, mirtazapine, and amitriptyline.

As for the clinical implications of the findings, Dr. Henssler said that he does consider discontinuation symptoms when selecting a medication. “I would choose a drug with lower rate of these symptoms unless there was a specific reason to choose one with a higher rate,” he said. 

Dr. Henssler added that these data raise awareness of the placebo effect.

“Considering the placebo results, approximately half of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms could be attributable to expectation or non-specific symptoms,” the researchers noted.

“This is not to say all antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are caused by patient expectations; in practice, all patients discontinuing antidepressants need to be counseled and monitored, and patients who report antidepressant discontinuation symptoms must be helped, in particular those who develop severe antidepressant discontinuation symptoms,” they concluded.

 

Experts Weigh In

Commenting on the study at a press briefing, Oliver Howes, MD, chair of the psychopharmacology committee at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, United Kingdom, said that he welcomed “the insight that this robust study provides.”

“If someone chooses to stop taking their antidepressants, their doctor should help them to do so slowly and in a controlled manner that limits the impact of any potential withdrawal symptoms,” Dr. Howes said.

He added that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has produced a resource for patients and carers on stopping antidepressants that offers information on tapering medication at a pace that suits individual patient needs.

Also commenting, Tony Kendrick, MD, professor of primary care, University of Southampton, United Kingdom, pointed out some limitations of the new meta-analysis — in particular, that the method of assessment of discontinuation symptoms in the included studies was very variable, with specific measurement scales of discontinuation symptoms used in only six of the studies. 

“In most cases the assessment seemed to depend at least partly on the judgment of the authors of the included studies rather than being based on a systematic collection of data,” Dr. Kendrick added.

In an accompanying editorial, Glyn Lewis, PhD, and Gemma Lewis, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, wrote that though the meta-analysis has its limitations, including the fact that many of the studies were small, often use antidepressants that are not commonly used now, and studied people who had not taken the antidepressants for a very long time, “the results here are a substantial improvement on anything that has been published before.”

They emphasize the importance of discussing the issue of a placebo effect with patients when stopping antidepressants. 

The editorialists pointed out that as antidepressants are prescribed to many millions of people, the relatively uncommon severe withdrawal symptoms will still affect a substantial number of people. However, for individual clinicians, severe withdrawal symptoms will seem uncommon, and most patients will probably not be troubled by antidepressant withdrawal, especially when medication is tapered over a few weeks.

They noted that cessation of antidepressants can lead to an increase in depressive and anxious symptoms, and distinguishing between relapsing symptoms and withdrawal is difficult. 

“Short-term symptoms that reduce quickly, without intervention, are best thought of as a form of withdrawal, even if those symptoms might be similar or identical to the symptoms of depression and anxiety. More serious and longer-term symptoms might best be managed by tapering more slowly, or even deciding to remain on the antidepressant,” the editorialists wrote.

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Kendrick led the NIHR REDUCE trial of internet and telephone support for antidepressant discontinuation and was a member of the guideline committee for the NICE 2022 Depression Guideline.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms appears to be much lower than was previously thought, results from a new meta-analysis of studies assessing this issue showed.

After accounting for placebo effects, results showed that about 15% of patients who discontinue antidepressant therapy had true discontinuation symptoms, with severe symptoms occurring in about 2% of patients. 

“Considering all available data, we conservatively estimate that one out of every six to seven patients has truly pharmacologically-caused antidepressant discontinuation symptoms. This might still be an over-estimate, as it is difficult to factor in residual or re-emerging symptoms of depression or anxiety,” the researchers concluded. 

The study was published online in The Lancet.
 

More Reliable Data

“We are not saying all antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are a placebo effect. It is a real phenomenon. And we are not saying that there is no problem discontinuing antidepressants. But these findings suggest that true antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are lower than previous studies have suggested,” study investigator, Christopher Baethge, MD, University of Cologne, Germany, said at a Science Media Centre press briefing.

“Our data should de-emotionalize the debate on this issue. Yes, antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are a problem, but they should not cause undue alarm to patients or doctors,” Dr. Baethge added. 

Lead investigator, Jonathan Henssler, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, noted that “previous studies on this issue have included surveys which have selection bias in that people with symptoms antidepressant discontinuation are more likely to participate. This study includes a broader range of research and excluded surveys, so we believe these are more reliable results.” 
 

A Controversial Issue

The investigators note that antidepressant discontinuation symptoms can be highly variable and nonspecific, with the most frequently reported symptoms being dizziness, headache, nausea, insomnia, and irritability. These symptoms typically occur within a few days and are usually transient but can last up to several weeks or months.

Explaining the mechanism behind the phenomenon, Dr. Baethge noted that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants increase the available serotonin in the brain, but the body responds by reducing the number of serotonin receptors. If the amount of available serotonin is reduced after stopping the medication, then this can lead to discontinuation symptoms. 

However, the incidence and severity of these symptoms remains controversial, the researchers noted. They point out that some estimates suggest that antidepressant discontinuation symptoms occurred in the majority of patients (56%), with almost half of cases classed as severe. 

Previous attempts at assessment have been questioned on methodologic grounds especially because of inclusion of online surveys or other studies prone to selection and dissatisfaction bias.

“Medical professionals continue to hold polarized positions on the incidence and severity of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms, and the debate continues in public media,” they wrote.

This is the first publication of a larger project on antidepressant discontinuation symptoms.

For the study, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 44 controlled trials and 35 observational studies assessing the incidence of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms including a total of 21,002 patients. Of these, 16,532 patients discontinued antidepressant treatment, and 4470 patients discontinued placebo. 

Incidence of at least one antidepressant discontinuation symptom occurred in 31% of patients stopping antidepressant therapy and in 17% after discontinuation of placebo, giving a true rate of pharmacologic-driven antidepressant discontinuation symptoms of 14%-15%.

The study also showed that severe discontinuation symptoms occurred in 2.8% of those stopping antidepressants and in 0.6% of those stopping placebo, giving a true rate of severe antidepressant discontinuation symptoms of around 2%. 

There was no association with treatment duration or with pharmaceutical company funding, and different statistical analyses produced similar results, suggesting the findings are robust, Dr. Baethge reported.

 

Risks by Medication

Desvenlafaxine, venlafaxine, imipramine, and escitalopram were associated with higher frequency of discontinuation symptoms and imipramine, paroxetine, and either desvenlafaxine or venlafaxine were associated with a higher severity of symptoms.

Fluoxetine, sertraline, and citalopram had lower rates of discontinuation symptoms. No data were available for bupropion, mirtazapine, and amitriptyline.

As for the clinical implications of the findings, Dr. Henssler said that he does consider discontinuation symptoms when selecting a medication. “I would choose a drug with lower rate of these symptoms unless there was a specific reason to choose one with a higher rate,” he said. 

Dr. Henssler added that these data raise awareness of the placebo effect.

“Considering the placebo results, approximately half of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms could be attributable to expectation or non-specific symptoms,” the researchers noted.

“This is not to say all antidepressant discontinuation symptoms are caused by patient expectations; in practice, all patients discontinuing antidepressants need to be counseled and monitored, and patients who report antidepressant discontinuation symptoms must be helped, in particular those who develop severe antidepressant discontinuation symptoms,” they concluded.

 

Experts Weigh In

Commenting on the study at a press briefing, Oliver Howes, MD, chair of the psychopharmacology committee at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, United Kingdom, said that he welcomed “the insight that this robust study provides.”

“If someone chooses to stop taking their antidepressants, their doctor should help them to do so slowly and in a controlled manner that limits the impact of any potential withdrawal symptoms,” Dr. Howes said.

He added that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has produced a resource for patients and carers on stopping antidepressants that offers information on tapering medication at a pace that suits individual patient needs.

Also commenting, Tony Kendrick, MD, professor of primary care, University of Southampton, United Kingdom, pointed out some limitations of the new meta-analysis — in particular, that the method of assessment of discontinuation symptoms in the included studies was very variable, with specific measurement scales of discontinuation symptoms used in only six of the studies. 

“In most cases the assessment seemed to depend at least partly on the judgment of the authors of the included studies rather than being based on a systematic collection of data,” Dr. Kendrick added.

In an accompanying editorial, Glyn Lewis, PhD, and Gemma Lewis, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, wrote that though the meta-analysis has its limitations, including the fact that many of the studies were small, often use antidepressants that are not commonly used now, and studied people who had not taken the antidepressants for a very long time, “the results here are a substantial improvement on anything that has been published before.”

They emphasize the importance of discussing the issue of a placebo effect with patients when stopping antidepressants. 

The editorialists pointed out that as antidepressants are prescribed to many millions of people, the relatively uncommon severe withdrawal symptoms will still affect a substantial number of people. However, for individual clinicians, severe withdrawal symptoms will seem uncommon, and most patients will probably not be troubled by antidepressant withdrawal, especially when medication is tapered over a few weeks.

They noted that cessation of antidepressants can lead to an increase in depressive and anxious symptoms, and distinguishing between relapsing symptoms and withdrawal is difficult. 

“Short-term symptoms that reduce quickly, without intervention, are best thought of as a form of withdrawal, even if those symptoms might be similar or identical to the symptoms of depression and anxiety. More serious and longer-term symptoms might best be managed by tapering more slowly, or even deciding to remain on the antidepressant,” the editorialists wrote.

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Kendrick led the NIHR REDUCE trial of internet and telephone support for antidepressant discontinuation and was a member of the guideline committee for the NICE 2022 Depression Guideline.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Teenagers who use cannabis have a dramatic increased risk for a psychotic disorder, compared with their counterparts who don’t use the drug, new research showed.

Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.

“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.

“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.


 

Increased Potency

“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.

The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.

To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.

They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.

Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.

The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.

Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
 

Perception of Harm Declining

When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).

“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.

The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.

Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.

Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.

This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teenagers who use cannabis have a dramatic increased risk for a psychotic disorder, compared with their counterparts who don’t use the drug, new research showed.

Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.

“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.

“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.


 

Increased Potency

“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.

The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.

To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.

They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.

Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.

The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.

Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
 

Perception of Harm Declining

When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).

“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.

The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.

Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.

Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.

This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teenagers who use cannabis have a dramatic increased risk for a psychotic disorder, compared with their counterparts who don’t use the drug, new research showed.

Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.

“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.

“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.


 

Increased Potency

“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.

The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.

To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.

They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.

Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.

The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.

Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
 

Perception of Harm Declining

When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).

“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.

The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.

Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.

Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.

This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.