Mental Health

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

How might you discuss a suicidal ideation, an anxiety-provoking topic, with your patients and their parents? After a positive screen, there will be times when you decide your patient should go to an emergency department for an urgent evaluation. However, most of the time you will be able to help the family identify strategies to lower risk and improve safety and resilience, while waiting for a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

Bring in the Parents: Modeling Validation, Structure, and Optimism

If you have identified some degree of suicide risk in your patient, either with a screening instrument or in your clinical interview, ask your patient if you can bring their parents into the conversation. They may resist, and if so, find out why they are hesitant. Are they worried about causing their parents some distress? Are they concerned their parents will be surprised? Disappointed? Scared? Angry? Acknowledge how hard it can be to find a way to talk about such emotional material with parents. What is their communication like with their parents usually? Do they talk every night at dinner or rarely? Are their interactions usually lighthearted or playful? Brief? Irritable and angry? Have they talked about or managed difficult times before as a family? How did that go? Did they feel they ended up supporting an anxious or depressed single parent? Was their parent harsh and punitive? Since involving the parent is essential, if you become concerned that a conversation with the parent would truly increase the risk of suicide, perhaps because of reports of violence at home, then you may need to send your patient to the emergency department so they can be assessed in a safe setting where a clinical team can evaluate your patient while involving more (or different) members of the family.

Most of the time, your patient will describe a situation that will simply be uncomfortable or stressful for their parent. Don’t be dismissive of their concerns. Instead, acknowledge that talking about their inner life will feel hard. Validate that their parents will be sad, worried, and stressed to hear about what they are feeling. Then offer that parents always prefer to know what is happening with their child so they can help, even if that means only being present to bear it alongside them. You can remind them that you will be there, too, to reassure their parents that this is a common problem and that you can face it and help it to get better together. Find out if they would like you to take the lead in speaking about it, but do not let them wait in the waiting room. Discussing the topic with you with both parents and patient in the room will help even those families that are not great communicators to begin to be more connected, even if you do most of the talking. While you need to bring their symptoms and suicidality to their parents’ attention, find out if there are any details they would rather not share. Perhaps they are struggling with questions of gender identity or sexual orientation, or are thinking of giving up an activity their parents may be very invested in. While any future treatment will prioritize honest communication within the family, communication about their emerging identity should not be rushed, and especially not in the setting of concerns about suicide risk.

With the information you do gather, there are often steps you can take to lower the stress level. The parents’ awareness of their suffering, perhaps acknowledging a broken heart, excessive academic pressure, or a major disappointment may suggest steps to lower the stress level. A mental health referral might introduce a sense of hope. A reminder of their meaningful connection to a parent, a team, a religion, or an activity may also remind the adolescent of a positive view of their future.
 

Introducing the Topic

When you bring parents into the room, let them know that there is something important and difficult that you need to discuss with them together. Ask if they have noted any changes in their child’s behavior, school performance, or demeanor. Have they had any worries about their teenager? If they have, affirm that they are picking up on something real, and ask more about it. If they have not, offer that their child has been doing a valiant job of soldiering through their days while managing some strong and difficult thoughts and feelings. Walk them through some of what you have learned from your patient, always inviting your patient to affirm or add to what you are detailing. Most parents are keenly aware of the prevalence of suicidal thoughts during adolescence. Bring it into the open, and offer that the next steps are going to be to add more adults to their child’s orbit to help diagnose and treat any underlying psychiatric illness. Reassure them that you are confident that psychiatric illnesses are treatable, even curable. Reassure them that one of the best safety measures is good communication and connectedness with parents.

Help Parents to Be Good Listeners

Some parents may respond with heightened anxiety and need for reassurance from their child. Others may try to talk their child out of their suicidal thoughts. But your year is going so well! You got a great grade in calculus! Gently model validation: Acknowledge to the parents that it is understandable to feel worried or to look for a rational argument against suicide. Offer that feelings don’t usually respond to logic, but do improve with support and time. It may be better for everyone to treat this topic more like the weather so it is easier to talk about and manage. No one gets defensive or distressed if it’s raining, they just put on the right gear. Has the parent ever felt depressed? Did they ever have suicidal ideation growing up? Can they agree to check in at regular times? Could the child speak up if they are feeling badly? Can all agree that parents should check in if their child seems more down? Help them to acknowledge how hard it is to bear strong feelings, but that it is always better together.

Identify Coping Strategies

In front of parents, ask your patient if anything helps when they are feeling at their worst. If they can’t identify anything, offer some possibilities: a walk outside together? making art or music? being out in nature? snuggling with a beloved pet? a set of jumping jacks to get their heart rate up? a favorite playlist? Talking to a particular friend or relative? Make a list. Prioritize activities that are healthy and connect them to others when they are feeling their worst.

Focus on the Basics

Make a concrete and practical plan for steps they can all take to improve well-being. Start with strategies to ensure restful sleep at night, regular exercise, and healthy nutrition. Depression and anxiety often interfere with these functions, so families can work together to support them even while waiting for assessment by a psychiatrist. Help them identify modest rules or routines (consistent bedtime, no screens in the bedroom, a daily walk after dinner) that parents can set that will make a difference.

Set Up Speed Bumps

Talk together about setting up some speed bumps to support their child’s safety. Find out if there are firearms in the home. Be crystal clear that they should be locked, preferably with ammunition, in a separate secure place. Their child should have no knowledge of how to access them, or they should be stored out of the home for the time being.

Parents should lock any medications that could be dangerous in overdose (including in homes if the adolescent will be visiting). Educate them about Tylenol and any prescription medications in their home that should be locked. This part of a conversation is always stressful. Acknowledge that, and remind everyone that, these are important strategies. It should be always be easier to ask their parent for help if they are feeling terrible than it is to access something dangerous.
 

Acknowledge the Strain

Finally, it is important to acknowledge how hard it is for your patient to bear these feelings, and that speaking up about them may feel like the last thing they want to do. Applaud them for their strength while reminding them that they need to share if they feel worse. Likewise, model for parents that feeling stressed and worried in this circumstance is normal. They should think about how to take good care of themselves. The same well-being strategies you reviewed for their child can work for them too! They may want to focus on sleep or exercise, enhance their nourishing social connections, protect time for beloved hobbies. Everyone should hear that they should never worry alone. If someone feels more worried, bring it to their parent, therapist, psychiatrist, spouse, or to you. They should trust their instincts if they think it is time to go to the emergency department. With supportive open communication, they will strengthen the protective connections which in turn will see the family through the course of the treatable illnesses that cause suicidal thoughts.

Lastly, this is difficult work for any physician. As psychiatrists, we worry about higher-risk teenagers when we decide that hospitalization carries a bigger risk than benefit. Pediatricians see many more teenagers with suicidal ideation and even though the statistical risk is very low, no one knows how to predict any individual teenager’s behavior. Therefore, pediatricians face the direct stress of the clinical work and the deeper stress of knowing there is always some uncertainty in medicine.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

How might you discuss a suicidal ideation, an anxiety-provoking topic, with your patients and their parents? After a positive screen, there will be times when you decide your patient should go to an emergency department for an urgent evaluation. However, most of the time you will be able to help the family identify strategies to lower risk and improve safety and resilience, while waiting for a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

Bring in the Parents: Modeling Validation, Structure, and Optimism

If you have identified some degree of suicide risk in your patient, either with a screening instrument or in your clinical interview, ask your patient if you can bring their parents into the conversation. They may resist, and if so, find out why they are hesitant. Are they worried about causing their parents some distress? Are they concerned their parents will be surprised? Disappointed? Scared? Angry? Acknowledge how hard it can be to find a way to talk about such emotional material with parents. What is their communication like with their parents usually? Do they talk every night at dinner or rarely? Are their interactions usually lighthearted or playful? Brief? Irritable and angry? Have they talked about or managed difficult times before as a family? How did that go? Did they feel they ended up supporting an anxious or depressed single parent? Was their parent harsh and punitive? Since involving the parent is essential, if you become concerned that a conversation with the parent would truly increase the risk of suicide, perhaps because of reports of violence at home, then you may need to send your patient to the emergency department so they can be assessed in a safe setting where a clinical team can evaluate your patient while involving more (or different) members of the family.

Most of the time, your patient will describe a situation that will simply be uncomfortable or stressful for their parent. Don’t be dismissive of their concerns. Instead, acknowledge that talking about their inner life will feel hard. Validate that their parents will be sad, worried, and stressed to hear about what they are feeling. Then offer that parents always prefer to know what is happening with their child so they can help, even if that means only being present to bear it alongside them. You can remind them that you will be there, too, to reassure their parents that this is a common problem and that you can face it and help it to get better together. Find out if they would like you to take the lead in speaking about it, but do not let them wait in the waiting room. Discussing the topic with you with both parents and patient in the room will help even those families that are not great communicators to begin to be more connected, even if you do most of the talking. While you need to bring their symptoms and suicidality to their parents’ attention, find out if there are any details they would rather not share. Perhaps they are struggling with questions of gender identity or sexual orientation, or are thinking of giving up an activity their parents may be very invested in. While any future treatment will prioritize honest communication within the family, communication about their emerging identity should not be rushed, and especially not in the setting of concerns about suicide risk.

With the information you do gather, there are often steps you can take to lower the stress level. The parents’ awareness of their suffering, perhaps acknowledging a broken heart, excessive academic pressure, or a major disappointment may suggest steps to lower the stress level. A mental health referral might introduce a sense of hope. A reminder of their meaningful connection to a parent, a team, a religion, or an activity may also remind the adolescent of a positive view of their future.
 

Introducing the Topic

When you bring parents into the room, let them know that there is something important and difficult that you need to discuss with them together. Ask if they have noted any changes in their child’s behavior, school performance, or demeanor. Have they had any worries about their teenager? If they have, affirm that they are picking up on something real, and ask more about it. If they have not, offer that their child has been doing a valiant job of soldiering through their days while managing some strong and difficult thoughts and feelings. Walk them through some of what you have learned from your patient, always inviting your patient to affirm or add to what you are detailing. Most parents are keenly aware of the prevalence of suicidal thoughts during adolescence. Bring it into the open, and offer that the next steps are going to be to add more adults to their child’s orbit to help diagnose and treat any underlying psychiatric illness. Reassure them that you are confident that psychiatric illnesses are treatable, even curable. Reassure them that one of the best safety measures is good communication and connectedness with parents.

Help Parents to Be Good Listeners

Some parents may respond with heightened anxiety and need for reassurance from their child. Others may try to talk their child out of their suicidal thoughts. But your year is going so well! You got a great grade in calculus! Gently model validation: Acknowledge to the parents that it is understandable to feel worried or to look for a rational argument against suicide. Offer that feelings don’t usually respond to logic, but do improve with support and time. It may be better for everyone to treat this topic more like the weather so it is easier to talk about and manage. No one gets defensive or distressed if it’s raining, they just put on the right gear. Has the parent ever felt depressed? Did they ever have suicidal ideation growing up? Can they agree to check in at regular times? Could the child speak up if they are feeling badly? Can all agree that parents should check in if their child seems more down? Help them to acknowledge how hard it is to bear strong feelings, but that it is always better together.

Identify Coping Strategies

In front of parents, ask your patient if anything helps when they are feeling at their worst. If they can’t identify anything, offer some possibilities: a walk outside together? making art or music? being out in nature? snuggling with a beloved pet? a set of jumping jacks to get their heart rate up? a favorite playlist? Talking to a particular friend or relative? Make a list. Prioritize activities that are healthy and connect them to others when they are feeling their worst.

Focus on the Basics

Make a concrete and practical plan for steps they can all take to improve well-being. Start with strategies to ensure restful sleep at night, regular exercise, and healthy nutrition. Depression and anxiety often interfere with these functions, so families can work together to support them even while waiting for assessment by a psychiatrist. Help them identify modest rules or routines (consistent bedtime, no screens in the bedroom, a daily walk after dinner) that parents can set that will make a difference.

Set Up Speed Bumps

Talk together about setting up some speed bumps to support their child’s safety. Find out if there are firearms in the home. Be crystal clear that they should be locked, preferably with ammunition, in a separate secure place. Their child should have no knowledge of how to access them, or they should be stored out of the home for the time being.

Parents should lock any medications that could be dangerous in overdose (including in homes if the adolescent will be visiting). Educate them about Tylenol and any prescription medications in their home that should be locked. This part of a conversation is always stressful. Acknowledge that, and remind everyone that, these are important strategies. It should be always be easier to ask their parent for help if they are feeling terrible than it is to access something dangerous.
 

Acknowledge the Strain

Finally, it is important to acknowledge how hard it is for your patient to bear these feelings, and that speaking up about them may feel like the last thing they want to do. Applaud them for their strength while reminding them that they need to share if they feel worse. Likewise, model for parents that feeling stressed and worried in this circumstance is normal. They should think about how to take good care of themselves. The same well-being strategies you reviewed for their child can work for them too! They may want to focus on sleep or exercise, enhance their nourishing social connections, protect time for beloved hobbies. Everyone should hear that they should never worry alone. If someone feels more worried, bring it to their parent, therapist, psychiatrist, spouse, or to you. They should trust their instincts if they think it is time to go to the emergency department. With supportive open communication, they will strengthen the protective connections which in turn will see the family through the course of the treatable illnesses that cause suicidal thoughts.

Lastly, this is difficult work for any physician. As psychiatrists, we worry about higher-risk teenagers when we decide that hospitalization carries a bigger risk than benefit. Pediatricians see many more teenagers with suicidal ideation and even though the statistical risk is very low, no one knows how to predict any individual teenager’s behavior. Therefore, pediatricians face the direct stress of the clinical work and the deeper stress of knowing there is always some uncertainty in medicine.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

How might you discuss a suicidal ideation, an anxiety-provoking topic, with your patients and their parents? After a positive screen, there will be times when you decide your patient should go to an emergency department for an urgent evaluation. However, most of the time you will be able to help the family identify strategies to lower risk and improve safety and resilience, while waiting for a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

Bring in the Parents: Modeling Validation, Structure, and Optimism

If you have identified some degree of suicide risk in your patient, either with a screening instrument or in your clinical interview, ask your patient if you can bring their parents into the conversation. They may resist, and if so, find out why they are hesitant. Are they worried about causing their parents some distress? Are they concerned their parents will be surprised? Disappointed? Scared? Angry? Acknowledge how hard it can be to find a way to talk about such emotional material with parents. What is their communication like with their parents usually? Do they talk every night at dinner or rarely? Are their interactions usually lighthearted or playful? Brief? Irritable and angry? Have they talked about or managed difficult times before as a family? How did that go? Did they feel they ended up supporting an anxious or depressed single parent? Was their parent harsh and punitive? Since involving the parent is essential, if you become concerned that a conversation with the parent would truly increase the risk of suicide, perhaps because of reports of violence at home, then you may need to send your patient to the emergency department so they can be assessed in a safe setting where a clinical team can evaluate your patient while involving more (or different) members of the family.

Most of the time, your patient will describe a situation that will simply be uncomfortable or stressful for their parent. Don’t be dismissive of their concerns. Instead, acknowledge that talking about their inner life will feel hard. Validate that their parents will be sad, worried, and stressed to hear about what they are feeling. Then offer that parents always prefer to know what is happening with their child so they can help, even if that means only being present to bear it alongside them. You can remind them that you will be there, too, to reassure their parents that this is a common problem and that you can face it and help it to get better together. Find out if they would like you to take the lead in speaking about it, but do not let them wait in the waiting room. Discussing the topic with you with both parents and patient in the room will help even those families that are not great communicators to begin to be more connected, even if you do most of the talking. While you need to bring their symptoms and suicidality to their parents’ attention, find out if there are any details they would rather not share. Perhaps they are struggling with questions of gender identity or sexual orientation, or are thinking of giving up an activity their parents may be very invested in. While any future treatment will prioritize honest communication within the family, communication about their emerging identity should not be rushed, and especially not in the setting of concerns about suicide risk.

With the information you do gather, there are often steps you can take to lower the stress level. The parents’ awareness of their suffering, perhaps acknowledging a broken heart, excessive academic pressure, or a major disappointment may suggest steps to lower the stress level. A mental health referral might introduce a sense of hope. A reminder of their meaningful connection to a parent, a team, a religion, or an activity may also remind the adolescent of a positive view of their future.
 

Introducing the Topic

When you bring parents into the room, let them know that there is something important and difficult that you need to discuss with them together. Ask if they have noted any changes in their child’s behavior, school performance, or demeanor. Have they had any worries about their teenager? If they have, affirm that they are picking up on something real, and ask more about it. If they have not, offer that their child has been doing a valiant job of soldiering through their days while managing some strong and difficult thoughts and feelings. Walk them through some of what you have learned from your patient, always inviting your patient to affirm or add to what you are detailing. Most parents are keenly aware of the prevalence of suicidal thoughts during adolescence. Bring it into the open, and offer that the next steps are going to be to add more adults to their child’s orbit to help diagnose and treat any underlying psychiatric illness. Reassure them that you are confident that psychiatric illnesses are treatable, even curable. Reassure them that one of the best safety measures is good communication and connectedness with parents.

Help Parents to Be Good Listeners

Some parents may respond with heightened anxiety and need for reassurance from their child. Others may try to talk their child out of their suicidal thoughts. But your year is going so well! You got a great grade in calculus! Gently model validation: Acknowledge to the parents that it is understandable to feel worried or to look for a rational argument against suicide. Offer that feelings don’t usually respond to logic, but do improve with support and time. It may be better for everyone to treat this topic more like the weather so it is easier to talk about and manage. No one gets defensive or distressed if it’s raining, they just put on the right gear. Has the parent ever felt depressed? Did they ever have suicidal ideation growing up? Can they agree to check in at regular times? Could the child speak up if they are feeling badly? Can all agree that parents should check in if their child seems more down? Help them to acknowledge how hard it is to bear strong feelings, but that it is always better together.

Identify Coping Strategies

In front of parents, ask your patient if anything helps when they are feeling at their worst. If they can’t identify anything, offer some possibilities: a walk outside together? making art or music? being out in nature? snuggling with a beloved pet? a set of jumping jacks to get their heart rate up? a favorite playlist? Talking to a particular friend or relative? Make a list. Prioritize activities that are healthy and connect them to others when they are feeling their worst.

Focus on the Basics

Make a concrete and practical plan for steps they can all take to improve well-being. Start with strategies to ensure restful sleep at night, regular exercise, and healthy nutrition. Depression and anxiety often interfere with these functions, so families can work together to support them even while waiting for assessment by a psychiatrist. Help them identify modest rules or routines (consistent bedtime, no screens in the bedroom, a daily walk after dinner) that parents can set that will make a difference.

Set Up Speed Bumps

Talk together about setting up some speed bumps to support their child’s safety. Find out if there are firearms in the home. Be crystal clear that they should be locked, preferably with ammunition, in a separate secure place. Their child should have no knowledge of how to access them, or they should be stored out of the home for the time being.

Parents should lock any medications that could be dangerous in overdose (including in homes if the adolescent will be visiting). Educate them about Tylenol and any prescription medications in their home that should be locked. This part of a conversation is always stressful. Acknowledge that, and remind everyone that, these are important strategies. It should be always be easier to ask their parent for help if they are feeling terrible than it is to access something dangerous.
 

Acknowledge the Strain

Finally, it is important to acknowledge how hard it is for your patient to bear these feelings, and that speaking up about them may feel like the last thing they want to do. Applaud them for their strength while reminding them that they need to share if they feel worse. Likewise, model for parents that feeling stressed and worried in this circumstance is normal. They should think about how to take good care of themselves. The same well-being strategies you reviewed for their child can work for them too! They may want to focus on sleep or exercise, enhance their nourishing social connections, protect time for beloved hobbies. Everyone should hear that they should never worry alone. If someone feels more worried, bring it to their parent, therapist, psychiatrist, spouse, or to you. They should trust their instincts if they think it is time to go to the emergency department. With supportive open communication, they will strengthen the protective connections which in turn will see the family through the course of the treatable illnesses that cause suicidal thoughts.

Lastly, this is difficult work for any physician. As psychiatrists, we worry about higher-risk teenagers when we decide that hospitalization carries a bigger risk than benefit. Pediatricians see many more teenagers with suicidal ideation and even though the statistical risk is very low, no one knows how to predict any individual teenager’s behavior. Therefore, pediatricians face the direct stress of the clinical work and the deeper stress of knowing there is always some uncertainty in medicine.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits for schizophrenia spectrum disorders increased by 15% in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study showed. Researchers said the findings suggested a need for social policies that strengthen mental health prevention systems.

METHODOLOGY:

Investigators obtained data from the University of California (UC) Health Data Warehouse on ED visits at five large UC health systems.

They captured the ICD-10 codes relating to schizophrenia spectrum disorders for ED visits from January 2016 to December 2021 for patients aged 18 years and older.

TAKEAWAY:

Between January 2016 and December 2021, there were 377,800 psychiatric ED visits, 10% of which involved schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

The mean number of visits per month for schizophrenia spectrum disorders rose from 520 before the pandemic to 558 visits per month after March 2020.

Compared to prepandemic numbers and after controlling for visits for other psychiatric disorders, there were 70.5 additional visits (P = .02) for schizophrenia spectrum disorders at 1 month and 74.9 additional visits (P = .005) at 3 months following the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Investigators noted that prior studies indicated that COVID-19 infections may induce psychosis in some individuals, which could have been one underlying factor in the spike in cases.

IN PRACTICE:

“The COVID-19 pandemic draws attention to the vulnerability of patients with schizophrenia to macrosocial shocks, underscoring the importance of social policies related to income support, housing, and health insurance for future emergency preparedness and the need to strengthen mental healthcare systems,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Parvita Singh, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data used in the study excluded patients younger than 18 years. In addition, there was no analysis for trends by age or sex, which could have added valuable information to the study, the authors wrote. There was also no way to identify patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Study disclosures are noted in the original study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits for schizophrenia spectrum disorders increased by 15% in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study showed. Researchers said the findings suggested a need for social policies that strengthen mental health prevention systems.

METHODOLOGY:

Investigators obtained data from the University of California (UC) Health Data Warehouse on ED visits at five large UC health systems.

They captured the ICD-10 codes relating to schizophrenia spectrum disorders for ED visits from January 2016 to December 2021 for patients aged 18 years and older.

TAKEAWAY:

Between January 2016 and December 2021, there were 377,800 psychiatric ED visits, 10% of which involved schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

The mean number of visits per month for schizophrenia spectrum disorders rose from 520 before the pandemic to 558 visits per month after March 2020.

Compared to prepandemic numbers and after controlling for visits for other psychiatric disorders, there were 70.5 additional visits (P = .02) for schizophrenia spectrum disorders at 1 month and 74.9 additional visits (P = .005) at 3 months following the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Investigators noted that prior studies indicated that COVID-19 infections may induce psychosis in some individuals, which could have been one underlying factor in the spike in cases.

IN PRACTICE:

“The COVID-19 pandemic draws attention to the vulnerability of patients with schizophrenia to macrosocial shocks, underscoring the importance of social policies related to income support, housing, and health insurance for future emergency preparedness and the need to strengthen mental healthcare systems,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Parvita Singh, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data used in the study excluded patients younger than 18 years. In addition, there was no analysis for trends by age or sex, which could have added valuable information to the study, the authors wrote. There was also no way to identify patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Study disclosures are noted in the original study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits for schizophrenia spectrum disorders increased by 15% in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study showed. Researchers said the findings suggested a need for social policies that strengthen mental health prevention systems.

METHODOLOGY:

Investigators obtained data from the University of California (UC) Health Data Warehouse on ED visits at five large UC health systems.

They captured the ICD-10 codes relating to schizophrenia spectrum disorders for ED visits from January 2016 to December 2021 for patients aged 18 years and older.

TAKEAWAY:

Between January 2016 and December 2021, there were 377,800 psychiatric ED visits, 10% of which involved schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

The mean number of visits per month for schizophrenia spectrum disorders rose from 520 before the pandemic to 558 visits per month after March 2020.

Compared to prepandemic numbers and after controlling for visits for other psychiatric disorders, there were 70.5 additional visits (P = .02) for schizophrenia spectrum disorders at 1 month and 74.9 additional visits (P = .005) at 3 months following the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Investigators noted that prior studies indicated that COVID-19 infections may induce psychosis in some individuals, which could have been one underlying factor in the spike in cases.

IN PRACTICE:

“The COVID-19 pandemic draws attention to the vulnerability of patients with schizophrenia to macrosocial shocks, underscoring the importance of social policies related to income support, housing, and health insurance for future emergency preparedness and the need to strengthen mental healthcare systems,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Parvita Singh, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data used in the study excluded patients younger than 18 years. In addition, there was no analysis for trends by age or sex, which could have added valuable information to the study, the authors wrote. There was also no way to identify patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Study disclosures are noted in the original study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid psychiatric disorders are associated with a twofold increased risk for schizophrenia, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed the data of 211,705 people aged 5-19 years (74% male; 54% aged 5-9 years) diagnosed with ADHD during 2010-2018 from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea.
• Participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis anytime in the 3 years prior to ADHD diagnosis were excluded.
• Investigators split participants into two groups — a group of those diagnosed with at least one psychiatric comorbidity within a year of ADHD diagnosis and another group comprising those with ADHD and no psychiatric comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• 37% (77,890) of those with ADHD had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder.
• Participants with one psychiatric comorbidity had a 2.1-fold increased risk for a schizophrenia diagnosis than participants with no comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.14; 95% CI, 2.05-2.23).
• Schizophrenia risk increased with each additional comorbidity. There was a fourfold increased risk for schizophrenia in study participants with three or more psychiatric comorbidities (aHR, 4.26; 95% CI, 3.90-4.65) than those with no comorbidity.
• Psychiatric comorbidities included autism spectrum disorder, which had the strongest link to increased schizophrenia risk (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.26-2.62). Other comorbidities that showed strong associations were intellectual disability (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.72-1.95), tic disorder (aHR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.66-1.88), depression (aHR,1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77), and bipolar disorder (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.53-1.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate schizophrenia risk among children and adolescents with ADHD, with a particular focus on psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. They also noted that although patients had no psychiatric comorbidities at the time of ADHD diagnosis, the occurrence of psychiatric comorbidities was frequently observed prior to schizophrenia diagnosis. 

“These findings highlighted the significance of carefully monitoring psychiatric comorbidities in patients with ADHD to effectively mitigate the burden of schizophrenia,” they noted.

SOURCE:

Soo Min Jeon, PharmD, PhD, of Jeju National University in Jeju, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on November 30, 2023 in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Since the diagnosis of ADHD, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric comorbidities were based on diagnostic codes, the possibility of underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis cannot be ruled out. Also, some patients with ADHD chose the general health consultation (International Classification of Diseases - Z code) due to the social stigma surrounding mental health problems.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Basic Science Research Program through the Ministry of Education and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Author disclosures can be found in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid psychiatric disorders are associated with a twofold increased risk for schizophrenia, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed the data of 211,705 people aged 5-19 years (74% male; 54% aged 5-9 years) diagnosed with ADHD during 2010-2018 from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea.
• Participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis anytime in the 3 years prior to ADHD diagnosis were excluded.
• Investigators split participants into two groups — a group of those diagnosed with at least one psychiatric comorbidity within a year of ADHD diagnosis and another group comprising those with ADHD and no psychiatric comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• 37% (77,890) of those with ADHD had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder.
• Participants with one psychiatric comorbidity had a 2.1-fold increased risk for a schizophrenia diagnosis than participants with no comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.14; 95% CI, 2.05-2.23).
• Schizophrenia risk increased with each additional comorbidity. There was a fourfold increased risk for schizophrenia in study participants with three or more psychiatric comorbidities (aHR, 4.26; 95% CI, 3.90-4.65) than those with no comorbidity.
• Psychiatric comorbidities included autism spectrum disorder, which had the strongest link to increased schizophrenia risk (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.26-2.62). Other comorbidities that showed strong associations were intellectual disability (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.72-1.95), tic disorder (aHR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.66-1.88), depression (aHR,1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77), and bipolar disorder (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.53-1.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate schizophrenia risk among children and adolescents with ADHD, with a particular focus on psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. They also noted that although patients had no psychiatric comorbidities at the time of ADHD diagnosis, the occurrence of psychiatric comorbidities was frequently observed prior to schizophrenia diagnosis. 

“These findings highlighted the significance of carefully monitoring psychiatric comorbidities in patients with ADHD to effectively mitigate the burden of schizophrenia,” they noted.

SOURCE:

Soo Min Jeon, PharmD, PhD, of Jeju National University in Jeju, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on November 30, 2023 in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Since the diagnosis of ADHD, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric comorbidities were based on diagnostic codes, the possibility of underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis cannot be ruled out. Also, some patients with ADHD chose the general health consultation (International Classification of Diseases - Z code) due to the social stigma surrounding mental health problems.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Basic Science Research Program through the Ministry of Education and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Author disclosures can be found in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid psychiatric disorders are associated with a twofold increased risk for schizophrenia, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed the data of 211,705 people aged 5-19 years (74% male; 54% aged 5-9 years) diagnosed with ADHD during 2010-2018 from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea.
• Participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis anytime in the 3 years prior to ADHD diagnosis were excluded.
• Investigators split participants into two groups — a group of those diagnosed with at least one psychiatric comorbidity within a year of ADHD diagnosis and another group comprising those with ADHD and no psychiatric comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• 37% (77,890) of those with ADHD had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder.
• Participants with one psychiatric comorbidity had a 2.1-fold increased risk for a schizophrenia diagnosis than participants with no comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.14; 95% CI, 2.05-2.23).
• Schizophrenia risk increased with each additional comorbidity. There was a fourfold increased risk for schizophrenia in study participants with three or more psychiatric comorbidities (aHR, 4.26; 95% CI, 3.90-4.65) than those with no comorbidity.
• Psychiatric comorbidities included autism spectrum disorder, which had the strongest link to increased schizophrenia risk (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.26-2.62). Other comorbidities that showed strong associations were intellectual disability (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.72-1.95), tic disorder (aHR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.66-1.88), depression (aHR,1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77), and bipolar disorder (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.53-1.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate schizophrenia risk among children and adolescents with ADHD, with a particular focus on psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. They also noted that although patients had no psychiatric comorbidities at the time of ADHD diagnosis, the occurrence of psychiatric comorbidities was frequently observed prior to schizophrenia diagnosis. 

“These findings highlighted the significance of carefully monitoring psychiatric comorbidities in patients with ADHD to effectively mitigate the burden of schizophrenia,” they noted.

SOURCE:

Soo Min Jeon, PharmD, PhD, of Jeju National University in Jeju, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on November 30, 2023 in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Since the diagnosis of ADHD, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric comorbidities were based on diagnostic codes, the possibility of underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis cannot be ruled out. Also, some patients with ADHD chose the general health consultation (International Classification of Diseases - Z code) due to the social stigma surrounding mental health problems.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Basic Science Research Program through the Ministry of Education and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Author disclosures can be found in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Allie” is a 16-year-old African American female, presenting to her primary care provider for a routine well-child visit. She gets straight As in school, has a boyfriend, and works as a lifeguard. She is always on her phone using Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram. Over the past year, it’s been taking her longer to turn off the phone and electronics at night. She needs to close the apps one by one and check the power sources a number of times. In the past few months, this ritual has become longer, includes more checks, and is interfering with sleep. She reports knowing this is abnormal and thinking she is “just kind of crazy” but she cannot stop. Her parents reassure her each evening. They now help her doublecheck that her devices are plugged in at least twice.

Unlike its depiction in the movies, many symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) happen internally. Often patients are aware that these are “not normal” and cover up their experiences. It can be hard for treaters to learn about these challenges. Children spend years suffering from OCD and even regularly attend nonspecific therapy without being diagnosed. However, targeted treatment dramatically improves the life trajectory of those with OCD.

Dr. Spottswood

OCD impacts 2.3% of the population in their lifetime but more than 28% of people report symptoms consistent with OCD traits.¹ OCD symptoms have increased since the pandemic² so it is showing up in primary care more frequently. Younger patients meet criteria when their symptoms on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) are sufficiently present, and impact the ability to function. The youngest patients with OCD are more likely to be male¹ and children are most likely to be identified between ages 8-12 and during the later teenage years,³ although symptoms can occur at any time in life.

Usually, symptom onset happens gradually and then waxes and wanes. Often OCD has been present over months to years but not identified until they reach a functional tipping point. Alternatively, symptoms caused by PANDAS/PANS occur out of the blue and should be treated according to infectious disease/autoimmune workup protocols. Other differential diagnosis for OCD include other anxiety disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, psychotic disorders, and other compulsive behaviors. OCD, tics, and ADHD are a combination seen more frequently in younger patients.⁴ Comorbidities frequently occur, including anxiety disorders, mood disorders, impulse control disorders, and substance use disorders.¹ PTSD frequently presents with comorbid OCD symptoms.¹ Finding the underlying cause is key to effective treatment.
 

How do I identify OCD in primary care?

Administer the CY-BOCS if these symptoms cause inability to function. The cut off for moderate symptoms is a score of 16 or above. Like all mental health screening, clinical judgment should be used to interpret the score. Many therapists do not screen for OCD.

How do I treat OCD in primary care?

Exposure Therapy with Response Prevention (ERP) is the gold-standard therapy and medication management is most effective when paired with ERP. ERP helps patients list their obsessions and compulsions in order of how much anxiety they cause, then work on gradual exposure starting with those that cause the least amount of anxiety. Picking up on any sneaky internal or external “responses” is important. An example response could include externally checking the rearview mirror to make sure the patient didn’t run over a puppy after they hit a pothole, or internally reassuring themselves. This “response prevention” can be the trickiest part of the therapy and is key to efficacy.

How to access ERP?

The International OCD Foundation offers a list of therapists trained in ERP, and most states’ psychiatry access lines can help primary care providers find available targeted resources. Despite these resources, it can be frustrating to help a family try find any available therapist who takes insurance, let alone a specialist. A recent JAMA article review found that IInternet-based treatment with both therapist- and non-therapist–guided interventions resulted in symptom improvements.² Interventions that include parents are most helpful for children.

Other therapy options include:

• MGH/McLean/ (iocd.org) hosts an online, low cost ($65 per family) OCD camp for those age 6-17 and caregivers found here.
• Many workbooks are available, Standing Up to OCD Workbook for Kids by Tyson Reuter, PhD, is one good option.
• A book for parents about how not to accidentally reinforce anxiety is Anxious Kids, Anxious Parents: 7 Ways to Stop the Worry Cycle by Lynn Lyons and Reid Wilson.
• Sometimes a therapist without expertise can work with families using workbooks and other supports to help with ERP.

Medication options

Medications alone do not cure OCD, but can help patients better participate in ERP therapy. When the most likely cause of OCD symptoms is OCD (ruling out family history of bipolar or other psychiatric illness), using SSRIs to treat symptoms is the gold standard for medications. There is FDA approval for sertraline (≥ age 6) and fluoxetine (≥ age 7) as first-line options. If tolerated, up-titrate to efficacy. Clomipramine and fluvoxamine also have FDA approval but have more side effects so are not first line. Citalopram has randomized clinical trial support.⁵

Allie’s primary care provider administered and scored the CY-BOCS, started her on an SSRI, and up-titrated to efficacy over 4 months. The family signed up for an online OCD camp and learned more about OCD at iocdf.org. They talked with her therapist and worked through an OCD workbook together as no specialist was available. Her parents decreased their reassurances. Because of her primary care provider’s intervention, Allie got the care she required and was better prepared to face future exacerbations.
 

Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont. She is the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

References

1. Ruscio AM et al. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;15(1):53-63. doi: 10.1038/mp.2008.94.

2. Lattie EG, Stamatis CA. Focusing on accessibility of evidence-based treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e221978. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.1978.

3. International OCD Foundation pediatric OCD for professionals. https://kids.iocdf.org/professionals/md/pediatric-ocd/. Accessed December 27, 2023.

4. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). 2013. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596. Accessed December 27, 2023.5. Hilt RJ, Nussbaum AM. DSM-5 pocket guide to child and adolescent mental health. Arlington, Virginia: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015.

“Allie” is a 16-year-old African American female, presenting to her primary care provider for a routine well-child visit. She gets straight As in school, has a boyfriend, and works as a lifeguard. She is always on her phone using Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram. Over the past year, it’s been taking her longer to turn off the phone and electronics at night. She needs to close the apps one by one and check the power sources a number of times. In the past few months, this ritual has become longer, includes more checks, and is interfering with sleep. She reports knowing this is abnormal and thinking she is “just kind of crazy” but she cannot stop. Her parents reassure her each evening. They now help her doublecheck that her devices are plugged in at least twice.

Unlike its depiction in the movies, many symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) happen internally. Often patients are aware that these are “not normal” and cover up their experiences. It can be hard for treaters to learn about these challenges. Children spend years suffering from OCD and even regularly attend nonspecific therapy without being diagnosed. However, targeted treatment dramatically improves the life trajectory of those with OCD.

Dr. Spottswood

OCD impacts 2.3% of the population in their lifetime but more than 28% of people report symptoms consistent with OCD traits.¹ OCD symptoms have increased since the pandemic² so it is showing up in primary care more frequently. Younger patients meet criteria when their symptoms on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) are sufficiently present, and impact the ability to function. The youngest patients with OCD are more likely to be male¹ and children are most likely to be identified between ages 8-12 and during the later teenage years,³ although symptoms can occur at any time in life.

Usually, symptom onset happens gradually and then waxes and wanes. Often OCD has been present over months to years but not identified until they reach a functional tipping point. Alternatively, symptoms caused by PANDAS/PANS occur out of the blue and should be treated according to infectious disease/autoimmune workup protocols. Other differential diagnosis for OCD include other anxiety disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, psychotic disorders, and other compulsive behaviors. OCD, tics, and ADHD are a combination seen more frequently in younger patients.⁴ Comorbidities frequently occur, including anxiety disorders, mood disorders, impulse control disorders, and substance use disorders.¹ PTSD frequently presents with comorbid OCD symptoms.¹ Finding the underlying cause is key to effective treatment.
 

How do I identify OCD in primary care?

Administer the CY-BOCS if these symptoms cause inability to function. The cut off for moderate symptoms is a score of 16 or above. Like all mental health screening, clinical judgment should be used to interpret the score. Many therapists do not screen for OCD.

How do I treat OCD in primary care?

Exposure Therapy with Response Prevention (ERP) is the gold-standard therapy and medication management is most effective when paired with ERP. ERP helps patients list their obsessions and compulsions in order of how much anxiety they cause, then work on gradual exposure starting with those that cause the least amount of anxiety. Picking up on any sneaky internal or external “responses” is important. An example response could include externally checking the rearview mirror to make sure the patient didn’t run over a puppy after they hit a pothole, or internally reassuring themselves. This “response prevention” can be the trickiest part of the therapy and is key to efficacy.

How to access ERP?

The International OCD Foundation offers a list of therapists trained in ERP, and most states’ psychiatry access lines can help primary care providers find available targeted resources. Despite these resources, it can be frustrating to help a family try find any available therapist who takes insurance, let alone a specialist. A recent JAMA article review found that IInternet-based treatment with both therapist- and non-therapist–guided interventions resulted in symptom improvements.² Interventions that include parents are most helpful for children.

Other therapy options include:

• MGH/McLean/ (iocd.org) hosts an online, low cost ($65 per family) OCD camp for those age 6-17 and caregivers found here.
• Many workbooks are available, Standing Up to OCD Workbook for Kids by Tyson Reuter, PhD, is one good option.
• A book for parents about how not to accidentally reinforce anxiety is Anxious Kids, Anxious Parents: 7 Ways to Stop the Worry Cycle by Lynn Lyons and Reid Wilson.
• Sometimes a therapist without expertise can work with families using workbooks and other supports to help with ERP.

Medication options

Medications alone do not cure OCD, but can help patients better participate in ERP therapy. When the most likely cause of OCD symptoms is OCD (ruling out family history of bipolar or other psychiatric illness), using SSRIs to treat symptoms is the gold standard for medications. There is FDA approval for sertraline (≥ age 6) and fluoxetine (≥ age 7) as first-line options. If tolerated, up-titrate to efficacy. Clomipramine and fluvoxamine also have FDA approval but have more side effects so are not first line. Citalopram has randomized clinical trial support.⁵

Allie’s primary care provider administered and scored the CY-BOCS, started her on an SSRI, and up-titrated to efficacy over 4 months. The family signed up for an online OCD camp and learned more about OCD at iocdf.org. They talked with her therapist and worked through an OCD workbook together as no specialist was available. Her parents decreased their reassurances. Because of her primary care provider’s intervention, Allie got the care she required and was better prepared to face future exacerbations.
 

Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont. She is the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

References

1. Ruscio AM et al. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;15(1):53-63. doi: 10.1038/mp.2008.94.

2. Lattie EG, Stamatis CA. Focusing on accessibility of evidence-based treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e221978. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.1978.

3. International OCD Foundation pediatric OCD for professionals. https://kids.iocdf.org/professionals/md/pediatric-ocd/. Accessed December 27, 2023.

4. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). 2013. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596. Accessed December 27, 2023.5. Hilt RJ, Nussbaum AM. DSM-5 pocket guide to child and adolescent mental health. Arlington, Virginia: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015.

“Allie” is a 16-year-old African American female, presenting to her primary care provider for a routine well-child visit. She gets straight As in school, has a boyfriend, and works as a lifeguard. She is always on her phone using Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram. Over the past year, it’s been taking her longer to turn off the phone and electronics at night. She needs to close the apps one by one and check the power sources a number of times. In the past few months, this ritual has become longer, includes more checks, and is interfering with sleep. She reports knowing this is abnormal and thinking she is “just kind of crazy” but she cannot stop. Her parents reassure her each evening. They now help her doublecheck that her devices are plugged in at least twice.

Unlike its depiction in the movies, many symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) happen internally. Often patients are aware that these are “not normal” and cover up their experiences. It can be hard for treaters to learn about these challenges. Children spend years suffering from OCD and even regularly attend nonspecific therapy without being diagnosed. However, targeted treatment dramatically improves the life trajectory of those with OCD.

Dr. Spottswood

OCD impacts 2.3% of the population in their lifetime but more than 28% of people report symptoms consistent with OCD traits.¹ OCD symptoms have increased since the pandemic² so it is showing up in primary care more frequently. Younger patients meet criteria when their symptoms on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) are sufficiently present, and impact the ability to function. The youngest patients with OCD are more likely to be male¹ and children are most likely to be identified between ages 8-12 and during the later teenage years,³ although symptoms can occur at any time in life.

Usually, symptom onset happens gradually and then waxes and wanes. Often OCD has been present over months to years but not identified until they reach a functional tipping point. Alternatively, symptoms caused by PANDAS/PANS occur out of the blue and should be treated according to infectious disease/autoimmune workup protocols. Other differential diagnosis for OCD include other anxiety disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, psychotic disorders, and other compulsive behaviors. OCD, tics, and ADHD are a combination seen more frequently in younger patients.⁴ Comorbidities frequently occur, including anxiety disorders, mood disorders, impulse control disorders, and substance use disorders.¹ PTSD frequently presents with comorbid OCD symptoms.¹ Finding the underlying cause is key to effective treatment.
 

How do I identify OCD in primary care?

Administer the CY-BOCS if these symptoms cause inability to function. The cut off for moderate symptoms is a score of 16 or above. Like all mental health screening, clinical judgment should be used to interpret the score. Many therapists do not screen for OCD.

How do I treat OCD in primary care?

Exposure Therapy with Response Prevention (ERP) is the gold-standard therapy and medication management is most effective when paired with ERP. ERP helps patients list their obsessions and compulsions in order of how much anxiety they cause, then work on gradual exposure starting with those that cause the least amount of anxiety. Picking up on any sneaky internal or external “responses” is important. An example response could include externally checking the rearview mirror to make sure the patient didn’t run over a puppy after they hit a pothole, or internally reassuring themselves. This “response prevention” can be the trickiest part of the therapy and is key to efficacy.

How to access ERP?

The International OCD Foundation offers a list of therapists trained in ERP, and most states’ psychiatry access lines can help primary care providers find available targeted resources. Despite these resources, it can be frustrating to help a family try find any available therapist who takes insurance, let alone a specialist. A recent JAMA article review found that IInternet-based treatment with both therapist- and non-therapist–guided interventions resulted in symptom improvements.² Interventions that include parents are most helpful for children.

Other therapy options include:

• MGH/McLean/ (iocd.org) hosts an online, low cost ($65 per family) OCD camp for those age 6-17 and caregivers found here.
• Many workbooks are available, Standing Up to OCD Workbook for Kids by Tyson Reuter, PhD, is one good option.
• A book for parents about how not to accidentally reinforce anxiety is Anxious Kids, Anxious Parents: 7 Ways to Stop the Worry Cycle by Lynn Lyons and Reid Wilson.
• Sometimes a therapist without expertise can work with families using workbooks and other supports to help with ERP.

Medication options

Medications alone do not cure OCD, but can help patients better participate in ERP therapy. When the most likely cause of OCD symptoms is OCD (ruling out family history of bipolar or other psychiatric illness), using SSRIs to treat symptoms is the gold standard for medications. There is FDA approval for sertraline (≥ age 6) and fluoxetine (≥ age 7) as first-line options. If tolerated, up-titrate to efficacy. Clomipramine and fluvoxamine also have FDA approval but have more side effects so are not first line. Citalopram has randomized clinical trial support.⁵

Allie’s primary care provider administered and scored the CY-BOCS, started her on an SSRI, and up-titrated to efficacy over 4 months. The family signed up for an online OCD camp and learned more about OCD at iocdf.org. They talked with her therapist and worked through an OCD workbook together as no specialist was available. Her parents decreased their reassurances. Because of her primary care provider’s intervention, Allie got the care she required and was better prepared to face future exacerbations.
 

Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont. She is the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

References

1. Ruscio AM et al. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;15(1):53-63. doi: 10.1038/mp.2008.94.

2. Lattie EG, Stamatis CA. Focusing on accessibility of evidence-based treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e221978. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.1978.

3. International OCD Foundation pediatric OCD for professionals. https://kids.iocdf.org/professionals/md/pediatric-ocd/. Accessed December 27, 2023.

4. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). 2013. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596. Accessed December 27, 2023.5. Hilt RJ, Nussbaum AM. DSM-5 pocket guide to child and adolescent mental health. Arlington, Virginia: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.