User login
Blood pressure meds tied to increased schizophrenia risk
ACE inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk for schizophrenia and may affect psychiatric symptoms, new research suggests.
Investigators found individuals who carry a genetic variant associated with lower levels of the ACE gene and protein have increased liability to schizophrenia, suggesting that drugs that lower ACE levels or activity may do the same.
“Our findings warrant further investigation into the role of ACE in schizophrenia and closer monitoring by clinicians of individuals, especially those with schizophrenia, who may be on medication that lower ACE activity, such as ACE inhibitors,” Sonia Shah, PhD, Institute for Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.
The study was published online March 10, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
Antihypertensives and mental illness
Hypertension is common in patients with psychiatric disorders and observational studies have reported associations between antihypertensive medication and these disorders, although the findings have been mixed.
Dr. Shah and colleagues estimated the potential of different antihypertensive drug classes on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.
In a two-sample Mendelian randomization study, they evaluated ties between a single-nucleotide variant and drug-target gene expression derived from expression quantitative trait loci data in blood (sample 1) and the SNV disease association from published case-control, genomewide association studies (sample 2).
The analyses included 40,675 patients with schizophrenia and 64,643 controls; 20,352 with bipolar disorder and 31,358 controls; and 135,458 with major depressive disorder and 344,901 controls.
The major finding was that a one standard deviation–lower expression of the ACE gene in blood was associated with lower systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.7-5.3), but also an increased risk of schizophrenia (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.38).
Could ACE inhibitors worsen symptoms or trigger episodes?
In their article, the researchers noted that, in most patients, onset of schizophrenia occurs in late adolescence or early adult life, ruling out ACE inhibitor treatment as a potential causal factor for most cases.
“However, if lower ACE levels play a causal role for schizophrenia risk, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that further lowering of ACE activity in existing patients could worsen symptoms or trigger a new episode,” they wrote.
Dr. Shah emphasized that evidence from genetic analyses alone is “not sufficient to justify changes in prescription guidelines.”
“Patients should not stop taking these medications if they are effective at controlling their blood pressure and they don’t suffer any adverse effects. But it would be reasonable to encourage greater pharmacovigilance,” she said in an interview.
“One way in which we are hoping to follow up these findings,” said Dr. Shah, “is to access electronic health record data for millions of individuals to investigate if there is evidence of increased rates of psychotic episodes in individuals who use ACE inhibitors, compared to other classes of blood pressure–lowering medication.”
Caution warranted
Reached for comment, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, noted that this is an “extremely complicated” study and urged caution in interpreting the results.
“Since most people develop schizophrenia earlier in life, before they usually develop problems with blood pressure, it’s not so much that these drugs might cause schizophrenia,” Dr. Sullivan said.
“But because of their effects on this particular gene, there’s a possibility that they might worsen symptoms or in somebody with borderline risk might cause them to develop symptoms later in life. This may apply to a relatively small number of people who develop symptoms of schizophrenia in their 40s and beyond,” he added.
That’s where “pharmacovigilance” comes into play, Dr. Sullivan said. “In other words, that they otherwise wouldn’t experience?”
Support for the study was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and U.S. National Institute for Mental Health. Dr. Shah and Dr. Sullivan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ACE inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk for schizophrenia and may affect psychiatric symptoms, new research suggests.
Investigators found individuals who carry a genetic variant associated with lower levels of the ACE gene and protein have increased liability to schizophrenia, suggesting that drugs that lower ACE levels or activity may do the same.
“Our findings warrant further investigation into the role of ACE in schizophrenia and closer monitoring by clinicians of individuals, especially those with schizophrenia, who may be on medication that lower ACE activity, such as ACE inhibitors,” Sonia Shah, PhD, Institute for Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.
The study was published online March 10, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
Antihypertensives and mental illness
Hypertension is common in patients with psychiatric disorders and observational studies have reported associations between antihypertensive medication and these disorders, although the findings have been mixed.
Dr. Shah and colleagues estimated the potential of different antihypertensive drug classes on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.
In a two-sample Mendelian randomization study, they evaluated ties between a single-nucleotide variant and drug-target gene expression derived from expression quantitative trait loci data in blood (sample 1) and the SNV disease association from published case-control, genomewide association studies (sample 2).
The analyses included 40,675 patients with schizophrenia and 64,643 controls; 20,352 with bipolar disorder and 31,358 controls; and 135,458 with major depressive disorder and 344,901 controls.
The major finding was that a one standard deviation–lower expression of the ACE gene in blood was associated with lower systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.7-5.3), but also an increased risk of schizophrenia (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.38).
Could ACE inhibitors worsen symptoms or trigger episodes?
In their article, the researchers noted that, in most patients, onset of schizophrenia occurs in late adolescence or early adult life, ruling out ACE inhibitor treatment as a potential causal factor for most cases.
“However, if lower ACE levels play a causal role for schizophrenia risk, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that further lowering of ACE activity in existing patients could worsen symptoms or trigger a new episode,” they wrote.
Dr. Shah emphasized that evidence from genetic analyses alone is “not sufficient to justify changes in prescription guidelines.”
“Patients should not stop taking these medications if they are effective at controlling their blood pressure and they don’t suffer any adverse effects. But it would be reasonable to encourage greater pharmacovigilance,” she said in an interview.
“One way in which we are hoping to follow up these findings,” said Dr. Shah, “is to access electronic health record data for millions of individuals to investigate if there is evidence of increased rates of psychotic episodes in individuals who use ACE inhibitors, compared to other classes of blood pressure–lowering medication.”
Caution warranted
Reached for comment, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, noted that this is an “extremely complicated” study and urged caution in interpreting the results.
“Since most people develop schizophrenia earlier in life, before they usually develop problems with blood pressure, it’s not so much that these drugs might cause schizophrenia,” Dr. Sullivan said.
“But because of their effects on this particular gene, there’s a possibility that they might worsen symptoms or in somebody with borderline risk might cause them to develop symptoms later in life. This may apply to a relatively small number of people who develop symptoms of schizophrenia in their 40s and beyond,” he added.
That’s where “pharmacovigilance” comes into play, Dr. Sullivan said. “In other words, that they otherwise wouldn’t experience?”
Support for the study was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and U.S. National Institute for Mental Health. Dr. Shah and Dr. Sullivan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ACE inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk for schizophrenia and may affect psychiatric symptoms, new research suggests.
Investigators found individuals who carry a genetic variant associated with lower levels of the ACE gene and protein have increased liability to schizophrenia, suggesting that drugs that lower ACE levels or activity may do the same.
“Our findings warrant further investigation into the role of ACE in schizophrenia and closer monitoring by clinicians of individuals, especially those with schizophrenia, who may be on medication that lower ACE activity, such as ACE inhibitors,” Sonia Shah, PhD, Institute for Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.
The study was published online March 10, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
Antihypertensives and mental illness
Hypertension is common in patients with psychiatric disorders and observational studies have reported associations between antihypertensive medication and these disorders, although the findings have been mixed.
Dr. Shah and colleagues estimated the potential of different antihypertensive drug classes on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.
In a two-sample Mendelian randomization study, they evaluated ties between a single-nucleotide variant and drug-target gene expression derived from expression quantitative trait loci data in blood (sample 1) and the SNV disease association from published case-control, genomewide association studies (sample 2).
The analyses included 40,675 patients with schizophrenia and 64,643 controls; 20,352 with bipolar disorder and 31,358 controls; and 135,458 with major depressive disorder and 344,901 controls.
The major finding was that a one standard deviation–lower expression of the ACE gene in blood was associated with lower systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.7-5.3), but also an increased risk of schizophrenia (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.38).
Could ACE inhibitors worsen symptoms or trigger episodes?
In their article, the researchers noted that, in most patients, onset of schizophrenia occurs in late adolescence or early adult life, ruling out ACE inhibitor treatment as a potential causal factor for most cases.
“However, if lower ACE levels play a causal role for schizophrenia risk, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that further lowering of ACE activity in existing patients could worsen symptoms or trigger a new episode,” they wrote.
Dr. Shah emphasized that evidence from genetic analyses alone is “not sufficient to justify changes in prescription guidelines.”
“Patients should not stop taking these medications if they are effective at controlling their blood pressure and they don’t suffer any adverse effects. But it would be reasonable to encourage greater pharmacovigilance,” she said in an interview.
“One way in which we are hoping to follow up these findings,” said Dr. Shah, “is to access electronic health record data for millions of individuals to investigate if there is evidence of increased rates of psychotic episodes in individuals who use ACE inhibitors, compared to other classes of blood pressure–lowering medication.”
Caution warranted
Reached for comment, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, noted that this is an “extremely complicated” study and urged caution in interpreting the results.
“Since most people develop schizophrenia earlier in life, before they usually develop problems with blood pressure, it’s not so much that these drugs might cause schizophrenia,” Dr. Sullivan said.
“But because of their effects on this particular gene, there’s a possibility that they might worsen symptoms or in somebody with borderline risk might cause them to develop symptoms later in life. This may apply to a relatively small number of people who develop symptoms of schizophrenia in their 40s and beyond,” he added.
That’s where “pharmacovigilance” comes into play, Dr. Sullivan said. “In other words, that they otherwise wouldn’t experience?”
Support for the study was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and U.S. National Institute for Mental Health. Dr. Shah and Dr. Sullivan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite risks and warnings, CNS polypharmacy is prevalent among patients with dementia
, new research suggests.
Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.
“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
Serious risks
Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.
They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”
The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.
They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.
To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.
The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.
They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
Conservative approach warranted
Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.
There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.
Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.
Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.
The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.
Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.
“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.
Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.
In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
A major clinical challenge
Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”
Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.
Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.
“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.
Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.
“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
Serious risks
Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.
They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”
The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.
They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.
To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.
The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.
They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
Conservative approach warranted
Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.
There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.
Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.
Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.
The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.
Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.
“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.
Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.
In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
A major clinical challenge
Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”
Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.
Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.
“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.
Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.
“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
Serious risks
Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.
They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”
The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.
They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.
To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.
The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.
They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
Conservative approach warranted
Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.
There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.
Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.
Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.
The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.
Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.
“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.
Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.
In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
A major clinical challenge
Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”
Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.
Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.
“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.
Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Smartphone ‘addiction’ tied to poor sleep in young adults
Smartphone “addiction” may explain poor sleep quality in a significant proportion of young adults, new research suggests.
Investigators found that almost 40% of adults aged 18-30 years who self-reported excessive smartphone use also reported poor sleep.
“Our study provides further support to the growing body of evidence that smartphone addiction has a deleterious impact on sleep,” wrote the researchers.
The study was published online March 2 in Frontiers of Psychiatry.
Not a clinical diagnosis
Smartphone addiction is not formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, but it’s an “active” area of research, lead investigator Ben Carter, PhD, King’s College London, noted in the report.
In a cross-sectional survey, 1,043 college students (aged 18-30 years, 73% women) completed the 10-question validated Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and the adapted Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Score Index.
On the SAS-SV, 406 students (38.9%) reported “addiction” to their smartphones. This estimated prevalence is consistent with other reported studies in young adult populations globally, which is in the range of 30%-45%, the researchers noted.
Overall, 61.6% of participants surveyed reported poor sleep; among those who reported smartphone addiction, 68.7% had poor sleep quality, vs. 57.1% of those who did not report smartphone addiction.
In multivariable analysis that adjusted for a variety of relevant factors, among those for whom there was evidence of smartphone addiction, the odds of poor sleep were increased by 41% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.87, P = .018).
The findings also suggest that a greater amount of time spent using the phone and greater use late at night can raise the risk for smartphone addiction.
“Should smartphone addiction become firmly established as a focus of clinical concern, those using their phones after midnight or using their phones for four or more hours per day are likely to be at high risk, and should guide administration of the SAS-SV,” the researchers wrote.
Caveats, cautions, and concerns
Reached for comment, Paul Weigle, MD, psychiatrist with Hartford HealthCare and Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said the finding of a relationship between addictive smartphone usage and poor sleep quality is not surprising.
“Great increases in adolescent screen media habits in recent decades have seen a concurrent increase in rates of insomnia among this population,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Weigle also noted that young people who use the phone excessively often do so in bed, “which decreases sleep onset by disrupting conditioning (the tendency for our bodies to relate bed with sleep) and by increasing physiological arousal, which makes it more difficult to fall asleep. The blue light from smartphones used at night disrupts our body’s natural circadian rhythms, confusing our brains regarding whether it is night or day, and further worsens sleep.”
Dr. Weigle said in an interview that some of his patients come to him seeking sleep medications, although the best treatment is to perform a “smartphone-ectomy” every evening.
Teenage patients will “beg, borrow, or steal” to be allowed to keep their phones by the bed with the promise not to use them overnight. Three-quarters of the time, when the parents are able to charge the phone in another room, “the sleep problem resolves,” Dr. Weigle said.
One caveat, he said, is that it’s “somewhat unclear whether this is best classified as an addiction or simply a seriously problematic habit. Either way, this type of habit causes a great deal of distress and dysfunction in the lives of those it affects, so it is important to understand,” he said.
In a statement, Bob Patton, PhD, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, noted that this is a cross-sectional study “and as such cannot lead to any firm conclusions about phone usage as the cause of reduced sleep quality.
“It does, however, provide some compelling evidence,” Dr. Patton said, “that the nature of smartphone usage and its related consequences are important considerations in addressing the emerging phenomenon of ‘smartphone addiction.’ ”
Also weighing in, Andrew Przybylski, PhD, director of research, Oxford (England) Internet Institute, University of Oxford, said by any global health body and is not a psychiatric disorder.
“The study is a correlational analysis of a sample of participants recruited on university campuses and therefore only reflects the experiences of those who had the purpose of the study explained to them. It can say nothing about behaviors in the general population,” Dr. Przybylski said in a statement.
“Readers should be cautious of making any firm conclusions about the impact of smartphone use in the general population, or the idea that they’re addictive in any objective sense, on the basis of this work,” he added. The study had no specific funding. Dr. Carter, Dr. Weigle, Dr. Patton, and Dr. Przybylski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Smartphone “addiction” may explain poor sleep quality in a significant proportion of young adults, new research suggests.
Investigators found that almost 40% of adults aged 18-30 years who self-reported excessive smartphone use also reported poor sleep.
“Our study provides further support to the growing body of evidence that smartphone addiction has a deleterious impact on sleep,” wrote the researchers.
The study was published online March 2 in Frontiers of Psychiatry.
Not a clinical diagnosis
Smartphone addiction is not formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, but it’s an “active” area of research, lead investigator Ben Carter, PhD, King’s College London, noted in the report.
In a cross-sectional survey, 1,043 college students (aged 18-30 years, 73% women) completed the 10-question validated Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and the adapted Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Score Index.
On the SAS-SV, 406 students (38.9%) reported “addiction” to their smartphones. This estimated prevalence is consistent with other reported studies in young adult populations globally, which is in the range of 30%-45%, the researchers noted.
Overall, 61.6% of participants surveyed reported poor sleep; among those who reported smartphone addiction, 68.7% had poor sleep quality, vs. 57.1% of those who did not report smartphone addiction.
In multivariable analysis that adjusted for a variety of relevant factors, among those for whom there was evidence of smartphone addiction, the odds of poor sleep were increased by 41% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.87, P = .018).
The findings also suggest that a greater amount of time spent using the phone and greater use late at night can raise the risk for smartphone addiction.
“Should smartphone addiction become firmly established as a focus of clinical concern, those using their phones after midnight or using their phones for four or more hours per day are likely to be at high risk, and should guide administration of the SAS-SV,” the researchers wrote.
Caveats, cautions, and concerns
Reached for comment, Paul Weigle, MD, psychiatrist with Hartford HealthCare and Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said the finding of a relationship between addictive smartphone usage and poor sleep quality is not surprising.
“Great increases in adolescent screen media habits in recent decades have seen a concurrent increase in rates of insomnia among this population,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Weigle also noted that young people who use the phone excessively often do so in bed, “which decreases sleep onset by disrupting conditioning (the tendency for our bodies to relate bed with sleep) and by increasing physiological arousal, which makes it more difficult to fall asleep. The blue light from smartphones used at night disrupts our body’s natural circadian rhythms, confusing our brains regarding whether it is night or day, and further worsens sleep.”
Dr. Weigle said in an interview that some of his patients come to him seeking sleep medications, although the best treatment is to perform a “smartphone-ectomy” every evening.
Teenage patients will “beg, borrow, or steal” to be allowed to keep their phones by the bed with the promise not to use them overnight. Three-quarters of the time, when the parents are able to charge the phone in another room, “the sleep problem resolves,” Dr. Weigle said.
One caveat, he said, is that it’s “somewhat unclear whether this is best classified as an addiction or simply a seriously problematic habit. Either way, this type of habit causes a great deal of distress and dysfunction in the lives of those it affects, so it is important to understand,” he said.
In a statement, Bob Patton, PhD, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, noted that this is a cross-sectional study “and as such cannot lead to any firm conclusions about phone usage as the cause of reduced sleep quality.
“It does, however, provide some compelling evidence,” Dr. Patton said, “that the nature of smartphone usage and its related consequences are important considerations in addressing the emerging phenomenon of ‘smartphone addiction.’ ”
Also weighing in, Andrew Przybylski, PhD, director of research, Oxford (England) Internet Institute, University of Oxford, said by any global health body and is not a psychiatric disorder.
“The study is a correlational analysis of a sample of participants recruited on university campuses and therefore only reflects the experiences of those who had the purpose of the study explained to them. It can say nothing about behaviors in the general population,” Dr. Przybylski said in a statement.
“Readers should be cautious of making any firm conclusions about the impact of smartphone use in the general population, or the idea that they’re addictive in any objective sense, on the basis of this work,” he added. The study had no specific funding. Dr. Carter, Dr. Weigle, Dr. Patton, and Dr. Przybylski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Smartphone “addiction” may explain poor sleep quality in a significant proportion of young adults, new research suggests.
Investigators found that almost 40% of adults aged 18-30 years who self-reported excessive smartphone use also reported poor sleep.
“Our study provides further support to the growing body of evidence that smartphone addiction has a deleterious impact on sleep,” wrote the researchers.
The study was published online March 2 in Frontiers of Psychiatry.
Not a clinical diagnosis
Smartphone addiction is not formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, but it’s an “active” area of research, lead investigator Ben Carter, PhD, King’s College London, noted in the report.
In a cross-sectional survey, 1,043 college students (aged 18-30 years, 73% women) completed the 10-question validated Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and the adapted Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Score Index.
On the SAS-SV, 406 students (38.9%) reported “addiction” to their smartphones. This estimated prevalence is consistent with other reported studies in young adult populations globally, which is in the range of 30%-45%, the researchers noted.
Overall, 61.6% of participants surveyed reported poor sleep; among those who reported smartphone addiction, 68.7% had poor sleep quality, vs. 57.1% of those who did not report smartphone addiction.
In multivariable analysis that adjusted for a variety of relevant factors, among those for whom there was evidence of smartphone addiction, the odds of poor sleep were increased by 41% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.87, P = .018).
The findings also suggest that a greater amount of time spent using the phone and greater use late at night can raise the risk for smartphone addiction.
“Should smartphone addiction become firmly established as a focus of clinical concern, those using their phones after midnight or using their phones for four or more hours per day are likely to be at high risk, and should guide administration of the SAS-SV,” the researchers wrote.
Caveats, cautions, and concerns
Reached for comment, Paul Weigle, MD, psychiatrist with Hartford HealthCare and Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said the finding of a relationship between addictive smartphone usage and poor sleep quality is not surprising.
“Great increases in adolescent screen media habits in recent decades have seen a concurrent increase in rates of insomnia among this population,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Weigle also noted that young people who use the phone excessively often do so in bed, “which decreases sleep onset by disrupting conditioning (the tendency for our bodies to relate bed with sleep) and by increasing physiological arousal, which makes it more difficult to fall asleep. The blue light from smartphones used at night disrupts our body’s natural circadian rhythms, confusing our brains regarding whether it is night or day, and further worsens sleep.”
Dr. Weigle said in an interview that some of his patients come to him seeking sleep medications, although the best treatment is to perform a “smartphone-ectomy” every evening.
Teenage patients will “beg, borrow, or steal” to be allowed to keep their phones by the bed with the promise not to use them overnight. Three-quarters of the time, when the parents are able to charge the phone in another room, “the sleep problem resolves,” Dr. Weigle said.
One caveat, he said, is that it’s “somewhat unclear whether this is best classified as an addiction or simply a seriously problematic habit. Either way, this type of habit causes a great deal of distress and dysfunction in the lives of those it affects, so it is important to understand,” he said.
In a statement, Bob Patton, PhD, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, noted that this is a cross-sectional study “and as such cannot lead to any firm conclusions about phone usage as the cause of reduced sleep quality.
“It does, however, provide some compelling evidence,” Dr. Patton said, “that the nature of smartphone usage and its related consequences are important considerations in addressing the emerging phenomenon of ‘smartphone addiction.’ ”
Also weighing in, Andrew Przybylski, PhD, director of research, Oxford (England) Internet Institute, University of Oxford, said by any global health body and is not a psychiatric disorder.
“The study is a correlational analysis of a sample of participants recruited on university campuses and therefore only reflects the experiences of those who had the purpose of the study explained to them. It can say nothing about behaviors in the general population,” Dr. Przybylski said in a statement.
“Readers should be cautious of making any firm conclusions about the impact of smartphone use in the general population, or the idea that they’re addictive in any objective sense, on the basis of this work,” he added. The study had no specific funding. Dr. Carter, Dr. Weigle, Dr. Patton, and Dr. Przybylski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Stunning’ report shows eating disorders are vastly underestimated
A “stunning” new analysis of global data on eating disorders show that they are far more prevalent and disabling than previously reported.
Investigators found the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 underestimated the prevalence of eating disorders by nearly 42 million cases, meaning these disorders are four times more common than previously reported.
“Our work highlights that eating disorders are far more prevalent and disabling than previously quantified,” lead author Damian F. Santomauro, PhD, University of Queensland and Center for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.
The study was published online March 3 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Policy implications
The GBD Study 2019 reports the prevalence and burden of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa under the umbrella of “eating disorders.”
However, binge-eating disorder (BED) and other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) are more common, the investigators noted.
By excluding BED and OSFED, 41.9 million cases of eating disorders were not represented in the study.
The researchers calculate that the GBD 2019 overlooked 17.3 million people with BED and 24.6 million people with OSFED.
, bringing the total eating disorder DALYs to 6.6 million in 2019, they reported.
“When disorders are left out of the GBD, there is a risk that policymakers and service planners will interpret that these diseases are not prevalent or disabling and therefore not important to address,” said Dr. Santomauro.
“Our results show that the formal inclusion of binge-eating disorder and OSFED in GBD is both feasible and important and will lead to better representation of eating disorder burden globally.
“In turn, this will enhance recognition of the burden experienced by people living with these disorders and hopefully motivate increased investment in research, prevention, and treatment in future,” he added.
Landmark article, clarion call for action
In an accompanying commentary, Jennifer J. Thomas, PhD, and Kendra R. Becker, PhD, with the Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that this “stunning” analysis highlights that eating disorders are four times more common than previously thought.
This “landmark” analysis also demonstrates that BED and OSFED are especially common with increasing age. It highlights the burden of eating disorders in men, “shattering the inaccurate but entrenched stereotype that eating disorders affect only thin, young, White women,” Dr. Thomas and Dr. Becker pointed out.
This article, they wrote, is a “clarion call” for BED and OSFED to be included in future versions of the GBD Study.
Going a step further, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Becker said the GBD Study should also include estimates of the prevalence of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, rumination disorder, and pica and that the investigators should obtain direct measures of the disability associated with all feeding and eating disorders included in the DSM-5.
“If they do, the reported global burden will be even greater, underscoring the clear need for increased funding to study, prevent, and treat these debilitating illnesses,” they concluded.
The study was funded by Queensland Health, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the editorialists are listed with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A “stunning” new analysis of global data on eating disorders show that they are far more prevalent and disabling than previously reported.
Investigators found the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 underestimated the prevalence of eating disorders by nearly 42 million cases, meaning these disorders are four times more common than previously reported.
“Our work highlights that eating disorders are far more prevalent and disabling than previously quantified,” lead author Damian F. Santomauro, PhD, University of Queensland and Center for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.
The study was published online March 3 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Policy implications
The GBD Study 2019 reports the prevalence and burden of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa under the umbrella of “eating disorders.”
However, binge-eating disorder (BED) and other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) are more common, the investigators noted.
By excluding BED and OSFED, 41.9 million cases of eating disorders were not represented in the study.
The researchers calculate that the GBD 2019 overlooked 17.3 million people with BED and 24.6 million people with OSFED.
, bringing the total eating disorder DALYs to 6.6 million in 2019, they reported.
“When disorders are left out of the GBD, there is a risk that policymakers and service planners will interpret that these diseases are not prevalent or disabling and therefore not important to address,” said Dr. Santomauro.
“Our results show that the formal inclusion of binge-eating disorder and OSFED in GBD is both feasible and important and will lead to better representation of eating disorder burden globally.
“In turn, this will enhance recognition of the burden experienced by people living with these disorders and hopefully motivate increased investment in research, prevention, and treatment in future,” he added.
Landmark article, clarion call for action
In an accompanying commentary, Jennifer J. Thomas, PhD, and Kendra R. Becker, PhD, with the Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that this “stunning” analysis highlights that eating disorders are four times more common than previously thought.
This “landmark” analysis also demonstrates that BED and OSFED are especially common with increasing age. It highlights the burden of eating disorders in men, “shattering the inaccurate but entrenched stereotype that eating disorders affect only thin, young, White women,” Dr. Thomas and Dr. Becker pointed out.
This article, they wrote, is a “clarion call” for BED and OSFED to be included in future versions of the GBD Study.
Going a step further, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Becker said the GBD Study should also include estimates of the prevalence of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, rumination disorder, and pica and that the investigators should obtain direct measures of the disability associated with all feeding and eating disorders included in the DSM-5.
“If they do, the reported global burden will be even greater, underscoring the clear need for increased funding to study, prevent, and treat these debilitating illnesses,” they concluded.
The study was funded by Queensland Health, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the editorialists are listed with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A “stunning” new analysis of global data on eating disorders show that they are far more prevalent and disabling than previously reported.
Investigators found the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 underestimated the prevalence of eating disorders by nearly 42 million cases, meaning these disorders are four times more common than previously reported.
“Our work highlights that eating disorders are far more prevalent and disabling than previously quantified,” lead author Damian F. Santomauro, PhD, University of Queensland and Center for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.
The study was published online March 3 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Policy implications
The GBD Study 2019 reports the prevalence and burden of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa under the umbrella of “eating disorders.”
However, binge-eating disorder (BED) and other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) are more common, the investigators noted.
By excluding BED and OSFED, 41.9 million cases of eating disorders were not represented in the study.
The researchers calculate that the GBD 2019 overlooked 17.3 million people with BED and 24.6 million people with OSFED.
, bringing the total eating disorder DALYs to 6.6 million in 2019, they reported.
“When disorders are left out of the GBD, there is a risk that policymakers and service planners will interpret that these diseases are not prevalent or disabling and therefore not important to address,” said Dr. Santomauro.
“Our results show that the formal inclusion of binge-eating disorder and OSFED in GBD is both feasible and important and will lead to better representation of eating disorder burden globally.
“In turn, this will enhance recognition of the burden experienced by people living with these disorders and hopefully motivate increased investment in research, prevention, and treatment in future,” he added.
Landmark article, clarion call for action
In an accompanying commentary, Jennifer J. Thomas, PhD, and Kendra R. Becker, PhD, with the Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that this “stunning” analysis highlights that eating disorders are four times more common than previously thought.
This “landmark” analysis also demonstrates that BED and OSFED are especially common with increasing age. It highlights the burden of eating disorders in men, “shattering the inaccurate but entrenched stereotype that eating disorders affect only thin, young, White women,” Dr. Thomas and Dr. Becker pointed out.
This article, they wrote, is a “clarion call” for BED and OSFED to be included in future versions of the GBD Study.
Going a step further, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Becker said the GBD Study should also include estimates of the prevalence of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, rumination disorder, and pica and that the investigators should obtain direct measures of the disability associated with all feeding and eating disorders included in the DSM-5.
“If they do, the reported global burden will be even greater, underscoring the clear need for increased funding to study, prevent, and treat these debilitating illnesses,” they concluded.
The study was funded by Queensland Health, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the editorialists are listed with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA authorizes first molecular at-home, OTC COVID-19 test
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).
The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.
The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.
In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.
The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.
“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.
“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.
Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.
“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.
In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.
The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).
The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.
The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.
In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.
The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.
“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.
“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.
Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.
“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.
In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.
The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).
The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.
The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.
In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.
The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.
“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.
“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.
Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.
“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.
In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.
The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA okays novel dual-action stimulant med for ADHD
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new, once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of ADHD in people aged 6 years and older.
Azstarys (KemPharm) combines extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
Following absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, SDX is converted to d-MPH, which is gradually released throughout the day, providing symptom control both rapidly with the d-MPH and for an extended duration with SDX.
The dual action of Azstarys addresses an unmet need for a medication that has early onset of action and long duration of therapy, with steady ADHD symptom control in one capsule, Corium, the company that will lead U.S. commercialization of the drug, stated in a news release.
“The data documenting the efficacy and safety of this new dual-action medicine, the first ever to use the novel prodrug serdexmethylphenidate together with dexmethylphenidate, is welcome news for clinicians and families to consider when choosing an appropriate ADHD therapy for children,” Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine in Las Vegas, who led the phase 3 trial of the drug, said in the release.
The study included 150 children aged 6-12 years with ADHD. Compared with placebo, treatment with Azstarys led to significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the primary endpoint, the change from baseline in Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham Rating Scale–Combined scores averaged over 13 hours.
Adverse events seen more often with Azstarys than placebo were headache (5.4% vs. 1.3%), upper abdominal pain (4.1% vs. 1.3%), insomnia (2.7% vs. 1.3%) and pharyngitis (2.7% vs. 0%). No serious adverse events were reported.
The FDA has recommended a schedule II controlled substance classification for Azstarys and the Drug Enforcement Administration will decide on scheduling within 90 days.
Pending the DEA’s action, the launch of Azstarys is anticipated this summer. Azstarys will be available in three once-daily dosage strengths of SDX/d-MPH: 26.1/5.2 mg, 39.2/7.8 mg, and 52.3/10.4 mg.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new, once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of ADHD in people aged 6 years and older.
Azstarys (KemPharm) combines extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
Following absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, SDX is converted to d-MPH, which is gradually released throughout the day, providing symptom control both rapidly with the d-MPH and for an extended duration with SDX.
The dual action of Azstarys addresses an unmet need for a medication that has early onset of action and long duration of therapy, with steady ADHD symptom control in one capsule, Corium, the company that will lead U.S. commercialization of the drug, stated in a news release.
“The data documenting the efficacy and safety of this new dual-action medicine, the first ever to use the novel prodrug serdexmethylphenidate together with dexmethylphenidate, is welcome news for clinicians and families to consider when choosing an appropriate ADHD therapy for children,” Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine in Las Vegas, who led the phase 3 trial of the drug, said in the release.
The study included 150 children aged 6-12 years with ADHD. Compared with placebo, treatment with Azstarys led to significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the primary endpoint, the change from baseline in Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham Rating Scale–Combined scores averaged over 13 hours.
Adverse events seen more often with Azstarys than placebo were headache (5.4% vs. 1.3%), upper abdominal pain (4.1% vs. 1.3%), insomnia (2.7% vs. 1.3%) and pharyngitis (2.7% vs. 0%). No serious adverse events were reported.
The FDA has recommended a schedule II controlled substance classification for Azstarys and the Drug Enforcement Administration will decide on scheduling within 90 days.
Pending the DEA’s action, the launch of Azstarys is anticipated this summer. Azstarys will be available in three once-daily dosage strengths of SDX/d-MPH: 26.1/5.2 mg, 39.2/7.8 mg, and 52.3/10.4 mg.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new, once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of ADHD in people aged 6 years and older.
Azstarys (KemPharm) combines extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
Following absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, SDX is converted to d-MPH, which is gradually released throughout the day, providing symptom control both rapidly with the d-MPH and for an extended duration with SDX.
The dual action of Azstarys addresses an unmet need for a medication that has early onset of action and long duration of therapy, with steady ADHD symptom control in one capsule, Corium, the company that will lead U.S. commercialization of the drug, stated in a news release.
“The data documenting the efficacy and safety of this new dual-action medicine, the first ever to use the novel prodrug serdexmethylphenidate together with dexmethylphenidate, is welcome news for clinicians and families to consider when choosing an appropriate ADHD therapy for children,” Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine in Las Vegas, who led the phase 3 trial of the drug, said in the release.
The study included 150 children aged 6-12 years with ADHD. Compared with placebo, treatment with Azstarys led to significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the primary endpoint, the change from baseline in Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham Rating Scale–Combined scores averaged over 13 hours.
Adverse events seen more often with Azstarys than placebo were headache (5.4% vs. 1.3%), upper abdominal pain (4.1% vs. 1.3%), insomnia (2.7% vs. 1.3%) and pharyngitis (2.7% vs. 0%). No serious adverse events were reported.
The FDA has recommended a schedule II controlled substance classification for Azstarys and the Drug Enforcement Administration will decide on scheduling within 90 days.
Pending the DEA’s action, the launch of Azstarys is anticipated this summer. Azstarys will be available in three once-daily dosage strengths of SDX/d-MPH: 26.1/5.2 mg, 39.2/7.8 mg, and 52.3/10.4 mg.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Do antidepressants increase the risk of brain bleeds?
Contrary to previous findings, results of a large observational study show. However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the finding.
“These findings are important, especially since depression is common after stroke and SSRIs are some of the first drugs considered for people,” Mithilesh Siddu, MD, of the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, also in Miami, said in a statement.
However, Dr. Siddu said “more research is needed to confirm our findings and to also examine if SSRIs prescribed after a stroke may be linked to risk of a second stroke.”
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Widely prescribed
SSRIs, the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, have previously been linked to an increased risk of ICH, possibly as a result of impaired platelet function.
To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data from the Florida Stroke Registry (FSR). They identified 127,915 patients who suffered ICH from January 2010 to December 2019 and for whom information on antidepressant use was available.
They analyzed the proportion of cases presenting with ICH among antidepressant users and the rate of SSRI prescription among stroke patients discharged on antidepressant therapy.
The researchers found that 11% of those who had been prescribed antidepressants had an ICH, compared with 14% of those who had not.
Antidepressant users were more likely to be female; non-Hispanic White; have hypertension; have diabetes; and use oral anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and statins prior to hospital presentation for ICH.
In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, prior history of hypertension, diabetes and prior oral anticoagulant, antiplatelet and statin use, antidepressant users were just as likely to present with spontaneous ICH as nonantidepressant users (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.01).
A total of 3.4% of all ICH patients and 9% of those in whom specific antidepressant information was available were discharged home on an antidepressant, most commonly an SSRI (74%).
The authors noted a key limitation of the study: Some details regarding the length, dosage, and type of antidepressants were not available.
Interpret with caution
In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, urged caution in making any firm conclusions based on this study.
“We have two questions here: One, is SSRI use a risk factor for first-time intracerebral hemorrhage, and two, is SSRI use after an ICH a risk factor for additional hemorrhages,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the study.
“This study incompletely addresses the first because it is known that SSRIs have a variety of potencies. For instance, paroxetine is a strong inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, whereas bupropion is weak. Hypothetically, the former has a greater risk of ICH. Because this study did not stratify by type of antidepressant, it is not possible to tease these out,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“The second question is completely unaddressed by this study and is the real concern in clinical practice, because the chance of rebleed is much higher than the risk of first-time ICH in the general population,” he added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Siddu and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Contrary to previous findings, results of a large observational study show. However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the finding.
“These findings are important, especially since depression is common after stroke and SSRIs are some of the first drugs considered for people,” Mithilesh Siddu, MD, of the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, also in Miami, said in a statement.
However, Dr. Siddu said “more research is needed to confirm our findings and to also examine if SSRIs prescribed after a stroke may be linked to risk of a second stroke.”
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Widely prescribed
SSRIs, the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, have previously been linked to an increased risk of ICH, possibly as a result of impaired platelet function.
To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data from the Florida Stroke Registry (FSR). They identified 127,915 patients who suffered ICH from January 2010 to December 2019 and for whom information on antidepressant use was available.
They analyzed the proportion of cases presenting with ICH among antidepressant users and the rate of SSRI prescription among stroke patients discharged on antidepressant therapy.
The researchers found that 11% of those who had been prescribed antidepressants had an ICH, compared with 14% of those who had not.
Antidepressant users were more likely to be female; non-Hispanic White; have hypertension; have diabetes; and use oral anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and statins prior to hospital presentation for ICH.
In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, prior history of hypertension, diabetes and prior oral anticoagulant, antiplatelet and statin use, antidepressant users were just as likely to present with spontaneous ICH as nonantidepressant users (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.01).
A total of 3.4% of all ICH patients and 9% of those in whom specific antidepressant information was available were discharged home on an antidepressant, most commonly an SSRI (74%).
The authors noted a key limitation of the study: Some details regarding the length, dosage, and type of antidepressants were not available.
Interpret with caution
In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, urged caution in making any firm conclusions based on this study.
“We have two questions here: One, is SSRI use a risk factor for first-time intracerebral hemorrhage, and two, is SSRI use after an ICH a risk factor for additional hemorrhages,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the study.
“This study incompletely addresses the first because it is known that SSRIs have a variety of potencies. For instance, paroxetine is a strong inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, whereas bupropion is weak. Hypothetically, the former has a greater risk of ICH. Because this study did not stratify by type of antidepressant, it is not possible to tease these out,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“The second question is completely unaddressed by this study and is the real concern in clinical practice, because the chance of rebleed is much higher than the risk of first-time ICH in the general population,” he added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Siddu and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Contrary to previous findings, results of a large observational study show. However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the finding.
“These findings are important, especially since depression is common after stroke and SSRIs are some of the first drugs considered for people,” Mithilesh Siddu, MD, of the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, also in Miami, said in a statement.
However, Dr. Siddu said “more research is needed to confirm our findings and to also examine if SSRIs prescribed after a stroke may be linked to risk of a second stroke.”
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Widely prescribed
SSRIs, the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, have previously been linked to an increased risk of ICH, possibly as a result of impaired platelet function.
To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data from the Florida Stroke Registry (FSR). They identified 127,915 patients who suffered ICH from January 2010 to December 2019 and for whom information on antidepressant use was available.
They analyzed the proportion of cases presenting with ICH among antidepressant users and the rate of SSRI prescription among stroke patients discharged on antidepressant therapy.
The researchers found that 11% of those who had been prescribed antidepressants had an ICH, compared with 14% of those who had not.
Antidepressant users were more likely to be female; non-Hispanic White; have hypertension; have diabetes; and use oral anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and statins prior to hospital presentation for ICH.
In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, prior history of hypertension, diabetes and prior oral anticoagulant, antiplatelet and statin use, antidepressant users were just as likely to present with spontaneous ICH as nonantidepressant users (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.01).
A total of 3.4% of all ICH patients and 9% of those in whom specific antidepressant information was available were discharged home on an antidepressant, most commonly an SSRI (74%).
The authors noted a key limitation of the study: Some details regarding the length, dosage, and type of antidepressants were not available.
Interpret with caution
In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, urged caution in making any firm conclusions based on this study.
“We have two questions here: One, is SSRI use a risk factor for first-time intracerebral hemorrhage, and two, is SSRI use after an ICH a risk factor for additional hemorrhages,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the study.
“This study incompletely addresses the first because it is known that SSRIs have a variety of potencies. For instance, paroxetine is a strong inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, whereas bupropion is weak. Hypothetically, the former has a greater risk of ICH. Because this study did not stratify by type of antidepressant, it is not possible to tease these out,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“The second question is completely unaddressed by this study and is the real concern in clinical practice, because the chance of rebleed is much higher than the risk of first-time ICH in the general population,” he added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Siddu and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2021
Psychiatrists’ happiness, well-being hit hard by COVID-19
Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.
The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.
Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
Anxiety, depression, burnout
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.
This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.
The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.
in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).
Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.
Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.
Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.
Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
Striving for work-life balance
Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.
Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.
About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.
About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.
About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.
Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).
Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.
It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.
Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.
The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.
Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
Anxiety, depression, burnout
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.
This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.
The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.
in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).
Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.
Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.
Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.
Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
Striving for work-life balance
Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.
Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.
About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.
About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.
About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.
Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).
Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.
It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.
Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.
The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.
Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
Anxiety, depression, burnout
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.
This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.
The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.
in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).
Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.
Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.
Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.
Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
Striving for work-life balance
Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.
Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.
About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.
About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.
About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.
Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).
Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.
It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.
Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Placenta’s role in schizophrenia ‘bigger than we imagined'
Schizophrenia-related genes in the placenta are predictive of the size of a baby’s brain at birth and the rate of cognitive development. In a complicated pregnancy, such genes could raise the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life, new research suggests.
“This is further evidence that early life matters in schizophrenia, and the placenta plays a bigger role than we imagined,” Daniel R. Weinberger, MD, director and CEO, Lieber Institute for Brain Development, and professor of neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.
“The holy grail would be to identify, based by complicated pregnancies and placental risk scores, who is at maximum risk for schizophrenia from very early in life, and these individuals could be followed more carefully,” Dr. Weinberger said in an interview.
The study was published online Feb. 8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A therapeutic target?
As reported by this news organization, in 2018, the same group of researchers reported that genes associated with schizophrenia are activated in the placenta during a complicated pregnancy, increasing a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later in life.
In this latest study, they further explored the biological interplay between placental health and neurodevelopment.
They found that a higher placental genomic risk score for schizophrenia, in conjunction with early-life complications during pregnancy, at labor/delivery, and early in neonatal life, is associated with changes in early brain growth and function, particularly in males.
“, and this was associated with slower cognitive development over the first 2 years of life – particularly in the first year of life,” said Dr. Weinberger.
This research defines a “potentially reversible neurodevelopmental path of risk that may be unique to schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
Although most individuals on this altered neurodevelopmental path likely “canalize” back toward normal development, some may not be rescued and instead “decanalize” toward illness, they add.
To date, prevention of schizophrenia from early life has seemed “unapproachable if not unimaginable, but these new insights offer possibilities to change the paradigm,” Dr. Weinberger said in the news release.
“Measuring schizophrenia genetic scores in the placenta combined with studying the first 2 years of cognitive developmental patterns and early life complications could prove to be an important approach to identify those babies with increased risks,” he added.
Important research
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Christopher A. Ross, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that this is “an interesting and important paper that replicates and extends previous findings of the relationship of placenta genes to schizophrenia in adults.”
“The hypothesis continues to be – and they are continuing to support it – that events in early development could set a person up for a risk of schizophrenia later in life,” said Dr. Ross.
This research, he added, also supports the concept that there are at least two broad classes of genetic risk for schizophrenia.
“One acts through genes that are expressed in the brain and doesn’t relate to early life events, and the other acts through genes expressed in the placenta in patients with these early life events,” said Dr. Ross.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Weinberger and Dr. Ross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Schizophrenia-related genes in the placenta are predictive of the size of a baby’s brain at birth and the rate of cognitive development. In a complicated pregnancy, such genes could raise the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life, new research suggests.
“This is further evidence that early life matters in schizophrenia, and the placenta plays a bigger role than we imagined,” Daniel R. Weinberger, MD, director and CEO, Lieber Institute for Brain Development, and professor of neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.
“The holy grail would be to identify, based by complicated pregnancies and placental risk scores, who is at maximum risk for schizophrenia from very early in life, and these individuals could be followed more carefully,” Dr. Weinberger said in an interview.
The study was published online Feb. 8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A therapeutic target?
As reported by this news organization, in 2018, the same group of researchers reported that genes associated with schizophrenia are activated in the placenta during a complicated pregnancy, increasing a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later in life.
In this latest study, they further explored the biological interplay between placental health and neurodevelopment.
They found that a higher placental genomic risk score for schizophrenia, in conjunction with early-life complications during pregnancy, at labor/delivery, and early in neonatal life, is associated with changes in early brain growth and function, particularly in males.
“, and this was associated with slower cognitive development over the first 2 years of life – particularly in the first year of life,” said Dr. Weinberger.
This research defines a “potentially reversible neurodevelopmental path of risk that may be unique to schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
Although most individuals on this altered neurodevelopmental path likely “canalize” back toward normal development, some may not be rescued and instead “decanalize” toward illness, they add.
To date, prevention of schizophrenia from early life has seemed “unapproachable if not unimaginable, but these new insights offer possibilities to change the paradigm,” Dr. Weinberger said in the news release.
“Measuring schizophrenia genetic scores in the placenta combined with studying the first 2 years of cognitive developmental patterns and early life complications could prove to be an important approach to identify those babies with increased risks,” he added.
Important research
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Christopher A. Ross, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that this is “an interesting and important paper that replicates and extends previous findings of the relationship of placenta genes to schizophrenia in adults.”
“The hypothesis continues to be – and they are continuing to support it – that events in early development could set a person up for a risk of schizophrenia later in life,” said Dr. Ross.
This research, he added, also supports the concept that there are at least two broad classes of genetic risk for schizophrenia.
“One acts through genes that are expressed in the brain and doesn’t relate to early life events, and the other acts through genes expressed in the placenta in patients with these early life events,” said Dr. Ross.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Weinberger and Dr. Ross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Schizophrenia-related genes in the placenta are predictive of the size of a baby’s brain at birth and the rate of cognitive development. In a complicated pregnancy, such genes could raise the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life, new research suggests.
“This is further evidence that early life matters in schizophrenia, and the placenta plays a bigger role than we imagined,” Daniel R. Weinberger, MD, director and CEO, Lieber Institute for Brain Development, and professor of neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.
“The holy grail would be to identify, based by complicated pregnancies and placental risk scores, who is at maximum risk for schizophrenia from very early in life, and these individuals could be followed more carefully,” Dr. Weinberger said in an interview.
The study was published online Feb. 8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A therapeutic target?
As reported by this news organization, in 2018, the same group of researchers reported that genes associated with schizophrenia are activated in the placenta during a complicated pregnancy, increasing a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later in life.
In this latest study, they further explored the biological interplay between placental health and neurodevelopment.
They found that a higher placental genomic risk score for schizophrenia, in conjunction with early-life complications during pregnancy, at labor/delivery, and early in neonatal life, is associated with changes in early brain growth and function, particularly in males.
“, and this was associated with slower cognitive development over the first 2 years of life – particularly in the first year of life,” said Dr. Weinberger.
This research defines a “potentially reversible neurodevelopmental path of risk that may be unique to schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
Although most individuals on this altered neurodevelopmental path likely “canalize” back toward normal development, some may not be rescued and instead “decanalize” toward illness, they add.
To date, prevention of schizophrenia from early life has seemed “unapproachable if not unimaginable, but these new insights offer possibilities to change the paradigm,” Dr. Weinberger said in the news release.
“Measuring schizophrenia genetic scores in the placenta combined with studying the first 2 years of cognitive developmental patterns and early life complications could prove to be an important approach to identify those babies with increased risks,” he added.
Important research
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Christopher A. Ross, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that this is “an interesting and important paper that replicates and extends previous findings of the relationship of placenta genes to schizophrenia in adults.”
“The hypothesis continues to be – and they are continuing to support it – that events in early development could set a person up for a risk of schizophrenia later in life,” said Dr. Ross.
This research, he added, also supports the concept that there are at least two broad classes of genetic risk for schizophrenia.
“One acts through genes that are expressed in the brain and doesn’t relate to early life events, and the other acts through genes expressed in the placenta in patients with these early life events,” said Dr. Ross.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Weinberger and Dr. Ross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA clears novel daytime device for obstructive sleep apnea
eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.
The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.
The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.
OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.
Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.
The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.
The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.
Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.
In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.
The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.
Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said.
The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.
The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.
The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.
The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.
OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.
Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.
The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.
The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.
Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.
In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.
The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.
Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said.
The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.
The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.
The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.
The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.
OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.
Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.
The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.
The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.
Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.
In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.
The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.
Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said.
The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.
The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.