Mental Health

TOPLINE:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is linked to a twofold increased risk for all-cause mortality and a heightened risk for death from both natural and unnatural causes, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied a population-based cohort (58% female) of 61,378 people with OCD and 613,780 unaffected individuals from several Swedish population registers and a sibling cohort of 34,085 people with OCD (58% female) and 47,874 unaffected full siblings (48% female).
• The median 8.1-year follow-up and median age at first diagnosis of OCD were 27 years.
• The researchers used Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for birth year, sex, county, country of birth (Sweden vs abroad), and sociodemographic variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, individuals with OCD had almost twice the risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.76-1.89), an almost threefold higher risk for mortality due to unnatural causes (aHR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.05-3.57), and a higher risk for mortality due to natural causes (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37).
• Of all the unnatural causes of death, suicide was most common (hazard ratio [HR], 4.90; 95% CI, 4.40-5.46), followed by accidents (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).
• Similar results were found in the sibling comparison, where the HR of all-cause mortality was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.67-2.03), death from natural causes was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.35-1.68), and death from unnatural causes was 3.10 (95% CI, 2.52-3.80).
• Natural causes of death that were higher in the OCD vs non-OCD cohort included endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases; mental and behavioral disorders; and diseases of the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and genitourinary systems.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better surveillance, prevention, and early intervention strategies should be implemented to reduce the risk of fatal outcomes in people with OCD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on January 17 in the British Medical Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not establish causality. Registry data used by the investigators only included diagnoses made in specialist care and may not have included diagnoses made in other settings. It is also unclear whether the findings, derived from a Swedish population, can be generalized to other populations, health systems, and medical practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Region Stockholm, the Swedish Society of Medicine, and Karolinska Institutet. Dr. de la Cruz received royalties for contributing articles to UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer Health and for editorial work from Elsevier outside the submitted work. See the paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is linked to a twofold increased risk for all-cause mortality and a heightened risk for death from both natural and unnatural causes, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied a population-based cohort (58% female) of 61,378 people with OCD and 613,780 unaffected individuals from several Swedish population registers and a sibling cohort of 34,085 people with OCD (58% female) and 47,874 unaffected full siblings (48% female).
• The median 8.1-year follow-up and median age at first diagnosis of OCD were 27 years.
• The researchers used Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for birth year, sex, county, country of birth (Sweden vs abroad), and sociodemographic variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, individuals with OCD had almost twice the risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.76-1.89), an almost threefold higher risk for mortality due to unnatural causes (aHR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.05-3.57), and a higher risk for mortality due to natural causes (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37).
• Of all the unnatural causes of death, suicide was most common (hazard ratio [HR], 4.90; 95% CI, 4.40-5.46), followed by accidents (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).
• Similar results were found in the sibling comparison, where the HR of all-cause mortality was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.67-2.03), death from natural causes was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.35-1.68), and death from unnatural causes was 3.10 (95% CI, 2.52-3.80).
• Natural causes of death that were higher in the OCD vs non-OCD cohort included endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases; mental and behavioral disorders; and diseases of the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and genitourinary systems.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better surveillance, prevention, and early intervention strategies should be implemented to reduce the risk of fatal outcomes in people with OCD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on January 17 in the British Medical Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not establish causality. Registry data used by the investigators only included diagnoses made in specialist care and may not have included diagnoses made in other settings. It is also unclear whether the findings, derived from a Swedish population, can be generalized to other populations, health systems, and medical practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Region Stockholm, the Swedish Society of Medicine, and Karolinska Institutet. Dr. de la Cruz received royalties for contributing articles to UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer Health and for editorial work from Elsevier outside the submitted work. See the paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is linked to a twofold increased risk for all-cause mortality and a heightened risk for death from both natural and unnatural causes, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied a population-based cohort (58% female) of 61,378 people with OCD and 613,780 unaffected individuals from several Swedish population registers and a sibling cohort of 34,085 people with OCD (58% female) and 47,874 unaffected full siblings (48% female).
• The median 8.1-year follow-up and median age at first diagnosis of OCD were 27 years.
• The researchers used Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for birth year, sex, county, country of birth (Sweden vs abroad), and sociodemographic variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, individuals with OCD had almost twice the risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.76-1.89), an almost threefold higher risk for mortality due to unnatural causes (aHR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.05-3.57), and a higher risk for mortality due to natural causes (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37).
• Of all the unnatural causes of death, suicide was most common (hazard ratio [HR], 4.90; 95% CI, 4.40-5.46), followed by accidents (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).
• Similar results were found in the sibling comparison, where the HR of all-cause mortality was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.67-2.03), death from natural causes was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.35-1.68), and death from unnatural causes was 3.10 (95% CI, 2.52-3.80).
• Natural causes of death that were higher in the OCD vs non-OCD cohort included endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases; mental and behavioral disorders; and diseases of the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and genitourinary systems.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better surveillance, prevention, and early intervention strategies should be implemented to reduce the risk of fatal outcomes in people with OCD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on January 17 in the British Medical Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not establish causality. Registry data used by the investigators only included diagnoses made in specialist care and may not have included diagnoses made in other settings. It is also unclear whether the findings, derived from a Swedish population, can be generalized to other populations, health systems, and medical practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Region Stockholm, the Swedish Society of Medicine, and Karolinska Institutet. Dr. de la Cruz received royalties for contributing articles to UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer Health and for editorial work from Elsevier outside the submitted work. See the paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent issue of Pediatric News, the Child Psychiatry Consult column featured an excellent discussion by Dr. David Rettew of some new research into a possible association between excessive crying in infancy and emotional problems later in childhood. This longitudinal study of almost 5,000 children included an assessment at 3 months and an MRI at age 10, which found that the infants who were excessive criers also had smaller amygdala. While the orders of magnitude of the researchers’ observations is small, it is interesting that the mothers of excessive criers were slightly more likely to experience mental health problems.

Dr. Rettew wisely cautions us to take note of this study’s findings but avoid overreacting. If indeed excessive crying in infancy is a marker for future problems, at the moment we may want to increase our efforts in helping parents improve their parenting skills using a nonjudgmental approach.

Using Dr. Rettew’s sage advice as a leaping off point, I will add the reminder that we must continue to meet head on the venerable myth that “colic” is a gastrointestinal problem. We must promise to never code out a parental complaint as “colic.” If we want to label it “excessive crying of infancy,” that’s one thing, but using “colic” only serves to perpetuate the myth and all the old, and sometimes dangerous, remedies that continue to cling to it.

Whether we use the term “colicky behavior” or call it “excessive crying,” we must remember these are merely descriptive terms. We have not made a diagnosis and are obligated to keep our minds open to serious and life-threatening conditions that make infants cry excessively — aberrant coronary arteries and urinary obstructions to name just two.

I can’t leave the phenomenon of colic without adding a nickel to the two cents I have already gifted you. When I was in medical school, I am sure I was told something about the amygdala. But, I suspect that I was only expected to recall where it lived. In the 50+ years since that brief encounter, other folks have learned much more. Prompted by this study, I searched what is known about small amygdala. Turns out that sleep deprivation has been associated with smaller amygdala, as has episodic migraine headaches, both in adults.

Regular readers of Letters from Maine can already smell where this is going. For decades I have believed that both excessive crying in infancy and episodic migraine in children are associated with, and my bias would say “caused” by, sleep deprivation. We learned from this study that mothers of excessively crying infants are more likely to have mental health problems. And, I will add that at least one study has shown that mothers and fathers of excessively crying infants are more likely to suffer from migraines.

Whether you join me in my biased interpretation isn’t important. What this study tells us is that there is likely to be something going on in infancy that may be a marker for future mental health problems. Were these children born with small or vulnerable amygdala? Did poor sleep hygiene contribute to the problem by interfering with the growth of their amygdala? I can envision studies that could provide some clarity. I’m not sure many parents would agree to have their happy and well-slept 3-month-olds slid into an MRI tube to serve as controls. But, I wouldn’t be surprised that we could find a sizable number of sleep deprived and frazzled parents of colicky infants who would agree if we told them it might help find an answer.
 

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

In a recent issue of Pediatric News, the Child Psychiatry Consult column featured an excellent discussion by Dr. David Rettew of some new research into a possible association between excessive crying in infancy and emotional problems later in childhood. This longitudinal study of almost 5,000 children included an assessment at 3 months and an MRI at age 10, which found that the infants who were excessive criers also had smaller amygdala. While the orders of magnitude of the researchers’ observations is small, it is interesting that the mothers of excessive criers were slightly more likely to experience mental health problems.

Dr. Rettew wisely cautions us to take note of this study’s findings but avoid overreacting. If indeed excessive crying in infancy is a marker for future problems, at the moment we may want to increase our efforts in helping parents improve their parenting skills using a nonjudgmental approach.

Using Dr. Rettew’s sage advice as a leaping off point, I will add the reminder that we must continue to meet head on the venerable myth that “colic” is a gastrointestinal problem. We must promise to never code out a parental complaint as “colic.” If we want to label it “excessive crying of infancy,” that’s one thing, but using “colic” only serves to perpetuate the myth and all the old, and sometimes dangerous, remedies that continue to cling to it.

Whether we use the term “colicky behavior” or call it “excessive crying,” we must remember these are merely descriptive terms. We have not made a diagnosis and are obligated to keep our minds open to serious and life-threatening conditions that make infants cry excessively — aberrant coronary arteries and urinary obstructions to name just two.

I can’t leave the phenomenon of colic without adding a nickel to the two cents I have already gifted you. When I was in medical school, I am sure I was told something about the amygdala. But, I suspect that I was only expected to recall where it lived. In the 50+ years since that brief encounter, other folks have learned much more. Prompted by this study, I searched what is known about small amygdala. Turns out that sleep deprivation has been associated with smaller amygdala, as has episodic migraine headaches, both in adults.

Regular readers of Letters from Maine can already smell where this is going. For decades I have believed that both excessive crying in infancy and episodic migraine in children are associated with, and my bias would say “caused” by, sleep deprivation. We learned from this study that mothers of excessively crying infants are more likely to have mental health problems. And, I will add that at least one study has shown that mothers and fathers of excessively crying infants are more likely to suffer from migraines.

Whether you join me in my biased interpretation isn’t important. What this study tells us is that there is likely to be something going on in infancy that may be a marker for future mental health problems. Were these children born with small or vulnerable amygdala? Did poor sleep hygiene contribute to the problem by interfering with the growth of their amygdala? I can envision studies that could provide some clarity. I’m not sure many parents would agree to have their happy and well-slept 3-month-olds slid into an MRI tube to serve as controls. But, I wouldn’t be surprised that we could find a sizable number of sleep deprived and frazzled parents of colicky infants who would agree if we told them it might help find an answer.
 

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

In a recent issue of Pediatric News, the Child Psychiatry Consult column featured an excellent discussion by Dr. David Rettew of some new research into a possible association between excessive crying in infancy and emotional problems later in childhood. This longitudinal study of almost 5,000 children included an assessment at 3 months and an MRI at age 10, which found that the infants who were excessive criers also had smaller amygdala. While the orders of magnitude of the researchers’ observations is small, it is interesting that the mothers of excessive criers were slightly more likely to experience mental health problems.

Dr. Rettew wisely cautions us to take note of this study’s findings but avoid overreacting. If indeed excessive crying in infancy is a marker for future problems, at the moment we may want to increase our efforts in helping parents improve their parenting skills using a nonjudgmental approach.

Using Dr. Rettew’s sage advice as a leaping off point, I will add the reminder that we must continue to meet head on the venerable myth that “colic” is a gastrointestinal problem. We must promise to never code out a parental complaint as “colic.” If we want to label it “excessive crying of infancy,” that’s one thing, but using “colic” only serves to perpetuate the myth and all the old, and sometimes dangerous, remedies that continue to cling to it.

Whether we use the term “colicky behavior” or call it “excessive crying,” we must remember these are merely descriptive terms. We have not made a diagnosis and are obligated to keep our minds open to serious and life-threatening conditions that make infants cry excessively — aberrant coronary arteries and urinary obstructions to name just two.

I can’t leave the phenomenon of colic without adding a nickel to the two cents I have already gifted you. When I was in medical school, I am sure I was told something about the amygdala. But, I suspect that I was only expected to recall where it lived. In the 50+ years since that brief encounter, other folks have learned much more. Prompted by this study, I searched what is known about small amygdala. Turns out that sleep deprivation has been associated with smaller amygdala, as has episodic migraine headaches, both in adults.

Regular readers of Letters from Maine can already smell where this is going. For decades I have believed that both excessive crying in infancy and episodic migraine in children are associated with, and my bias would say “caused” by, sleep deprivation. We learned from this study that mothers of excessively crying infants are more likely to have mental health problems. And, I will add that at least one study has shown that mothers and fathers of excessively crying infants are more likely to suffer from migraines.

Whether you join me in my biased interpretation isn’t important. What this study tells us is that there is likely to be something going on in infancy that may be a marker for future mental health problems. Were these children born with small or vulnerable amygdala? Did poor sleep hygiene contribute to the problem by interfering with the growth of their amygdala? I can envision studies that could provide some clarity. I’m not sure many parents would agree to have their happy and well-slept 3-month-olds slid into an MRI tube to serve as controls. But, I wouldn’t be surprised that we could find a sizable number of sleep deprived and frazzled parents of colicky infants who would agree if we told them it might help find an answer.
 

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

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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.