Megan Brooks

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The mental health consequences of COVID-19 deaths are likely to overwhelm an already tattered U.S. mental health system, leading to a lack of access, particularly for the most vulnerable, experts warn.

“A second wave of devastation is imminent, attributable to mental health consequences of COVID-19,” write Naomi Simon, MD, and coauthors with the department of psychiatry, New York University.

In a Viewpoint article published in JAMA on Oct. 12, physicians offer some sobering statistics.

Since February 2020, COVID-19 has taken the lives of more than 214,000 Americans. The number of deaths currently attributed to the virus is nearly four times the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The magnitude of death over a short period is a tragedy on a “historic scale,” wrote Dr. Simon and colleagues.

The surge in mental health problems related to COVID-19 deaths will bring further challenges to individuals, families, and communities, including a spike in deaths from suicide and drug overdoses, they warned.

It’s important to consider, they noted, that each COVID-19 death leaves an estimated nine family members bereaved, which is projected to lead to an estimated 2 million bereaved individuals in the United States.

“This interpersonal loss on a massive scale is compounded by societal disruption,” they wrote. The necessary social distancing and quarantine measures implemented to fight the virus have amplified emotional turmoil and have disrupted the ability of personal support networks and communities to come together and grieve.

“Of central concern is the transformation of normal grief and distress into prolonged grief and major depressive disorder and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Simon and colleagues said.

“Once established, these conditions can become chronic with additional comorbidities such as substance use disorders. Prolonged grief affects approximately 10% of bereaved individuals, but this is likely an underestimate for grief related to deaths from COVID-19,” they wrote.

As with the first COVID-19 wave, the mental health wave will disproportionately affect Black persons, Hispanic persons, older adults, persons in lower socioeconomic groups of all races and ethnicities, and healthcare workers, they note.

The psychological risks for health care and other essential workers are of particular concern, they say. “Supporting the mental health of these and other essential workforce is critical to readiness for managing recurrent waves of the pandemic,” they stated.

How will the United States manage this impending wave of mental health problems?

“The solution will require increased funding for mental health; widespread screening to identify individuals at highest risk including suicide risk; availability of primary care clinicians and mental health professionals trained to treat those with prolonged grief, depression, traumatic stress, and substance abuse; and a diligent focus on families and communities to creatively restore the approaches by which they have managed tragedy and loss over generations,” the authors wrote.

“History has shown that societies recover from such devastation when leaders and members are joined by a shared purpose, acting in a unified way to facilitate recovery. In such societies, there is a shared understanding that its members must care for one another because the loss of one is a loss for all. Above all, this shared understanding must be restored,” they concluded.

Dr. Simon has received personal fees from Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc, MGH Psychiatry Academy, Axovant Sciences, Springworks, Praxis Therapeutics, Aptinyx, Genomind, and Wiley (deputy editor, Depression and Anxiety). Saxe has received royalties from Guilford Press for the book Trauma Systems Therapy for Children and Teens (2016). Marmar serves on the scientific advisory board and owns equity in Receptor Life Sciences and serves on the PTSD advisory board for Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
 

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

The mental health consequences of COVID-19 deaths are likely to overwhelm an already tattered U.S. mental health system, leading to a lack of access, particularly for the most vulnerable, experts warn.

“A second wave of devastation is imminent, attributable to mental health consequences of COVID-19,” write Naomi Simon, MD, and coauthors with the department of psychiatry, New York University.

In a Viewpoint article published in JAMA on Oct. 12, physicians offer some sobering statistics.

Since February 2020, COVID-19 has taken the lives of more than 214,000 Americans. The number of deaths currently attributed to the virus is nearly four times the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The magnitude of death over a short period is a tragedy on a “historic scale,” wrote Dr. Simon and colleagues.

The surge in mental health problems related to COVID-19 deaths will bring further challenges to individuals, families, and communities, including a spike in deaths from suicide and drug overdoses, they warned.

It’s important to consider, they noted, that each COVID-19 death leaves an estimated nine family members bereaved, which is projected to lead to an estimated 2 million bereaved individuals in the United States.

“This interpersonal loss on a massive scale is compounded by societal disruption,” they wrote. The necessary social distancing and quarantine measures implemented to fight the virus have amplified emotional turmoil and have disrupted the ability of personal support networks and communities to come together and grieve.

“Of central concern is the transformation of normal grief and distress into prolonged grief and major depressive disorder and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Simon and colleagues said.

“Once established, these conditions can become chronic with additional comorbidities such as substance use disorders. Prolonged grief affects approximately 10% of bereaved individuals, but this is likely an underestimate for grief related to deaths from COVID-19,” they wrote.

As with the first COVID-19 wave, the mental health wave will disproportionately affect Black persons, Hispanic persons, older adults, persons in lower socioeconomic groups of all races and ethnicities, and healthcare workers, they note.

The psychological risks for health care and other essential workers are of particular concern, they say. “Supporting the mental health of these and other essential workforce is critical to readiness for managing recurrent waves of the pandemic,” they stated.

How will the United States manage this impending wave of mental health problems?

“The solution will require increased funding for mental health; widespread screening to identify individuals at highest risk including suicide risk; availability of primary care clinicians and mental health professionals trained to treat those with prolonged grief, depression, traumatic stress, and substance abuse; and a diligent focus on families and communities to creatively restore the approaches by which they have managed tragedy and loss over generations,” the authors wrote.

“History has shown that societies recover from such devastation when leaders and members are joined by a shared purpose, acting in a unified way to facilitate recovery. In such societies, there is a shared understanding that its members must care for one another because the loss of one is a loss for all. Above all, this shared understanding must be restored,” they concluded.

Dr. Simon has received personal fees from Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc, MGH Psychiatry Academy, Axovant Sciences, Springworks, Praxis Therapeutics, Aptinyx, Genomind, and Wiley (deputy editor, Depression and Anxiety). Saxe has received royalties from Guilford Press for the book Trauma Systems Therapy for Children and Teens (2016). Marmar serves on the scientific advisory board and owns equity in Receptor Life Sciences and serves on the PTSD advisory board for Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
 

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

The mental health consequences of COVID-19 deaths are likely to overwhelm an already tattered U.S. mental health system, leading to a lack of access, particularly for the most vulnerable, experts warn.

“A second wave of devastation is imminent, attributable to mental health consequences of COVID-19,” write Naomi Simon, MD, and coauthors with the department of psychiatry, New York University.

In a Viewpoint article published in JAMA on Oct. 12, physicians offer some sobering statistics.

Since February 2020, COVID-19 has taken the lives of more than 214,000 Americans. The number of deaths currently attributed to the virus is nearly four times the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The magnitude of death over a short period is a tragedy on a “historic scale,” wrote Dr. Simon and colleagues.

The surge in mental health problems related to COVID-19 deaths will bring further challenges to individuals, families, and communities, including a spike in deaths from suicide and drug overdoses, they warned.

It’s important to consider, they noted, that each COVID-19 death leaves an estimated nine family members bereaved, which is projected to lead to an estimated 2 million bereaved individuals in the United States.

“This interpersonal loss on a massive scale is compounded by societal disruption,” they wrote. The necessary social distancing and quarantine measures implemented to fight the virus have amplified emotional turmoil and have disrupted the ability of personal support networks and communities to come together and grieve.

“Of central concern is the transformation of normal grief and distress into prolonged grief and major depressive disorder and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Simon and colleagues said.

“Once established, these conditions can become chronic with additional comorbidities such as substance use disorders. Prolonged grief affects approximately 10% of bereaved individuals, but this is likely an underestimate for grief related to deaths from COVID-19,” they wrote.

As with the first COVID-19 wave, the mental health wave will disproportionately affect Black persons, Hispanic persons, older adults, persons in lower socioeconomic groups of all races and ethnicities, and healthcare workers, they note.

The psychological risks for health care and other essential workers are of particular concern, they say. “Supporting the mental health of these and other essential workforce is critical to readiness for managing recurrent waves of the pandemic,” they stated.

How will the United States manage this impending wave of mental health problems?

“The solution will require increased funding for mental health; widespread screening to identify individuals at highest risk including suicide risk; availability of primary care clinicians and mental health professionals trained to treat those with prolonged grief, depression, traumatic stress, and substance abuse; and a diligent focus on families and communities to creatively restore the approaches by which they have managed tragedy and loss over generations,” the authors wrote.

“History has shown that societies recover from such devastation when leaders and members are joined by a shared purpose, acting in a unified way to facilitate recovery. In such societies, there is a shared understanding that its members must care for one another because the loss of one is a loss for all. Above all, this shared understanding must be restored,” they concluded.

Dr. Simon has received personal fees from Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc, MGH Psychiatry Academy, Axovant Sciences, Springworks, Praxis Therapeutics, Aptinyx, Genomind, and Wiley (deputy editor, Depression and Anxiety). Saxe has received royalties from Guilford Press for the book Trauma Systems Therapy for Children and Teens (2016). Marmar serves on the scientific advisory board and owns equity in Receptor Life Sciences and serves on the PTSD advisory board for Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
 

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

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

Cardiovascular health should be routinely assessed and addressed in LGBTQ adults, the American Heart Association concluded in a new scientific statement.

“Among the most important takeaways from this scientific statement is the need for health care providers in clinical settings to routinely assess sexual orientation and gender identity,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.

“This will help health care providers engage LGBTQ patients in discussions about their heart health that account for the unique experiences of this population,” said Dr. Caceres, assistant professor at Columbia University, New York.

The statement was published online Oct. 8 in Circulation.
 

‘Invisible’ population

There are roughly 11 million LGBTQ adults in the United States, yet they are often “invisible in health care settings and cardiovascular research,” Dr. Caceres noted. The AHA scientific statement is the first from a national organization in the United States to comprehensively summarize the evidence on cardiovascular (CV) research in LGBTQ adults.

There is mounting evidence that LGBTQ adults experience worse CV health relative to their cisgender heterosexual peers. Disparities in CV health may be driven by unique psychosocial stressors in the LGBTQ individuals such as family rejection and anxiety of concealment of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While there is limited information on the CV health of LGBTQ people, the writing group said providers should be aware of the following:

• LGBTQ adults are more likely to use tobacco than their cisgender heterosexual peers.
• Transgender adults may be less physically active than their cisgender counterparts. Gender-affirming care might play a role in promoting physical activity among transgender people.
• Transgender women may be at increased risk for heart disease because of behavioral and clinical factors (such as the use of gender-affirming hormones like estrogen).
• Transgender women and nonbinary persons are more likely to binge drink.
• Lesbian and bisexual women have a higher prevalence of obesity than heterosexual women do.

“We need to better understand how to support LGBTQ adults in optimizing their CV health. To do this, we will need rigorous research that examines potential explanations for the CV health disparities that have been observed in LGBTQ adults,” Dr. Caceres said.

He noted that research is also needed within the LGBTQ population among groups that might be at greater risk for heart disease, including racial- and ethnic-minority and low-income LGBTQ adults.

“Researchers should also design and test evidence-based interventions to promote the heart health of LGBTQ adults. This is an area that is greatly lacking within CV health research,” said Dr. Caceres.
 

Discrimination in health care

Discrimination against LGBTQ adults in health care settings also remains a problem, the authors noted.

The writing group cites data showing that nearly 56% of sexual-minority and 70% of gender-minority adults report having experienced some form of discrimination from clinicians, including the use of harsh/abusive language.

“Perhaps most alarming,” roughly 8% of sexual-minority and 25% of transgender individuals have been denied health care by clinicians, they noted.

“LGBTQ individuals are delaying primary care and preventative visits because there is a great fear of being treated differently. Being treated differently often means receiving inadequate or inferior care because of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Dr. Caceres said in a news release.

The writing group calls for greater emphasis on LGBTQ health issues in the education of all health care providers. Dr. Caceres said it’s “paramount to include content about LGBTQ health in clinical training and licensure requirements in order to address these cardiovascular health disparities.”

Traditionally, there has been very little LGBTQ-related content in health care professional education training. A 2018 online survey of students at 10 medical schools found that approximately 80% of students did not feel competent to provide care for transgender patients.

But that may soon change. In September 2020, the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant began requiring LGBTQ curricular content, the writing group notes.

The AHA scientific statement on LGBTQ was developed by the writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

Cardiovascular health should be routinely assessed and addressed in LGBTQ adults, the American Heart Association concluded in a new scientific statement.

“Among the most important takeaways from this scientific statement is the need for health care providers in clinical settings to routinely assess sexual orientation and gender identity,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.

“This will help health care providers engage LGBTQ patients in discussions about their heart health that account for the unique experiences of this population,” said Dr. Caceres, assistant professor at Columbia University, New York.

The statement was published online Oct. 8 in Circulation.
 

‘Invisible’ population

There are roughly 11 million LGBTQ adults in the United States, yet they are often “invisible in health care settings and cardiovascular research,” Dr. Caceres noted. The AHA scientific statement is the first from a national organization in the United States to comprehensively summarize the evidence on cardiovascular (CV) research in LGBTQ adults.

There is mounting evidence that LGBTQ adults experience worse CV health relative to their cisgender heterosexual peers. Disparities in CV health may be driven by unique psychosocial stressors in the LGBTQ individuals such as family rejection and anxiety of concealment of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While there is limited information on the CV health of LGBTQ people, the writing group said providers should be aware of the following:

• LGBTQ adults are more likely to use tobacco than their cisgender heterosexual peers.
• Transgender adults may be less physically active than their cisgender counterparts. Gender-affirming care might play a role in promoting physical activity among transgender people.
• Transgender women may be at increased risk for heart disease because of behavioral and clinical factors (such as the use of gender-affirming hormones like estrogen).
• Transgender women and nonbinary persons are more likely to binge drink.
• Lesbian and bisexual women have a higher prevalence of obesity than heterosexual women do.

“We need to better understand how to support LGBTQ adults in optimizing their CV health. To do this, we will need rigorous research that examines potential explanations for the CV health disparities that have been observed in LGBTQ adults,” Dr. Caceres said.

He noted that research is also needed within the LGBTQ population among groups that might be at greater risk for heart disease, including racial- and ethnic-minority and low-income LGBTQ adults.

“Researchers should also design and test evidence-based interventions to promote the heart health of LGBTQ adults. This is an area that is greatly lacking within CV health research,” said Dr. Caceres.
 

Discrimination in health care

Discrimination against LGBTQ adults in health care settings also remains a problem, the authors noted.

The writing group cites data showing that nearly 56% of sexual-minority and 70% of gender-minority adults report having experienced some form of discrimination from clinicians, including the use of harsh/abusive language.

“Perhaps most alarming,” roughly 8% of sexual-minority and 25% of transgender individuals have been denied health care by clinicians, they noted.

“LGBTQ individuals are delaying primary care and preventative visits because there is a great fear of being treated differently. Being treated differently often means receiving inadequate or inferior care because of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Dr. Caceres said in a news release.

The writing group calls for greater emphasis on LGBTQ health issues in the education of all health care providers. Dr. Caceres said it’s “paramount to include content about LGBTQ health in clinical training and licensure requirements in order to address these cardiovascular health disparities.”

Traditionally, there has been very little LGBTQ-related content in health care professional education training. A 2018 online survey of students at 10 medical schools found that approximately 80% of students did not feel competent to provide care for transgender patients.

But that may soon change. In September 2020, the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant began requiring LGBTQ curricular content, the writing group notes.

The AHA scientific statement on LGBTQ was developed by the writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

Cardiovascular health should be routinely assessed and addressed in LGBTQ adults, the American Heart Association concluded in a new scientific statement.

“Among the most important takeaways from this scientific statement is the need for health care providers in clinical settings to routinely assess sexual orientation and gender identity,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.

“This will help health care providers engage LGBTQ patients in discussions about their heart health that account for the unique experiences of this population,” said Dr. Caceres, assistant professor at Columbia University, New York.

The statement was published online Oct. 8 in Circulation.
 

‘Invisible’ population

There are roughly 11 million LGBTQ adults in the United States, yet they are often “invisible in health care settings and cardiovascular research,” Dr. Caceres noted. The AHA scientific statement is the first from a national organization in the United States to comprehensively summarize the evidence on cardiovascular (CV) research in LGBTQ adults.

There is mounting evidence that LGBTQ adults experience worse CV health relative to their cisgender heterosexual peers. Disparities in CV health may be driven by unique psychosocial stressors in the LGBTQ individuals such as family rejection and anxiety of concealment of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While there is limited information on the CV health of LGBTQ people, the writing group said providers should be aware of the following:

• LGBTQ adults are more likely to use tobacco than their cisgender heterosexual peers.
• Transgender adults may be less physically active than their cisgender counterparts. Gender-affirming care might play a role in promoting physical activity among transgender people.
• Transgender women may be at increased risk for heart disease because of behavioral and clinical factors (such as the use of gender-affirming hormones like estrogen).
• Transgender women and nonbinary persons are more likely to binge drink.
• Lesbian and bisexual women have a higher prevalence of obesity than heterosexual women do.

“We need to better understand how to support LGBTQ adults in optimizing their CV health. To do this, we will need rigorous research that examines potential explanations for the CV health disparities that have been observed in LGBTQ adults,” Dr. Caceres said.

He noted that research is also needed within the LGBTQ population among groups that might be at greater risk for heart disease, including racial- and ethnic-minority and low-income LGBTQ adults.

“Researchers should also design and test evidence-based interventions to promote the heart health of LGBTQ adults. This is an area that is greatly lacking within CV health research,” said Dr. Caceres.
 

Discrimination in health care

Discrimination against LGBTQ adults in health care settings also remains a problem, the authors noted.

The writing group cites data showing that nearly 56% of sexual-minority and 70% of gender-minority adults report having experienced some form of discrimination from clinicians, including the use of harsh/abusive language.

“Perhaps most alarming,” roughly 8% of sexual-minority and 25% of transgender individuals have been denied health care by clinicians, they noted.

“LGBTQ individuals are delaying primary care and preventative visits because there is a great fear of being treated differently. Being treated differently often means receiving inadequate or inferior care because of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Dr. Caceres said in a news release.

The writing group calls for greater emphasis on LGBTQ health issues in the education of all health care providers. Dr. Caceres said it’s “paramount to include content about LGBTQ health in clinical training and licensure requirements in order to address these cardiovascular health disparities.”

Traditionally, there has been very little LGBTQ-related content in health care professional education training. A 2018 online survey of students at 10 medical schools found that approximately 80% of students did not feel competent to provide care for transgender patients.

But that may soon change. In September 2020, the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant began requiring LGBTQ curricular content, the writing group notes.

The AHA scientific statement on LGBTQ was developed by the writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

Over-the-counter (OTC) supplements advertised to improve memory and cognitive function may contain unapproved pharmaceutical drugs in potentially dangerous combinations and dosages, new research shows.

“Americans spend more than $600 million on over-the-counter smart pills every year, but we know very little about what is actually in these products,” said Pieter A. Cohen, MD, of the department of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Finding new combinations of drugs [that have] never been tested in humans in over-the-counter brain-boosting supplements is alarming,” said Dr. Cohen.

The study was published online Sept. 23 in Neurology Clinical Practice, a journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Buyer beware

In a search of the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database and the Natural Medicines Database, Dr. Cohen and colleagues identified 10 supplements labeled as containing omberacetam, aniracetam, phenylpiracetam, or oxiracetam – four analogues of piracetam that are not approved for human use in the United States. Piracetam is also not approved in the United States.

In these 10 products, five unapproved drugs were discovered – omberacetam and aniracetam along with three others (phenibut, vinpocetine and picamilon).

By consuming the recommended serving size of these products, consumers could be exposed to pharmaceutical-level dosages of drugs including a maximum of 40.6 mg omberacetam (typical pharmacologic dose 10 mg), 502 mg of aniracetam (typical pharmacologic dose 200-750 mg), 15.4 mg of phenibut (typical dose 250-500 mg), 4.3 mg of vinpocetine (typical dose 5-40 mg), and 90.1 mg of picamilon (typical  dose 50-200 mg), the study team reported.

Several drugs detected in these “smart” pills were not declared on the label, and several declared drugs were not detected in the products. For those products with drug quantities provided on the labels, three-quarters of declared quantities were inaccurate.

Consumers who use these cognitive enhancers could be exposed to amounts of these unapproved drugs that are fourfold greater than pharmaceutical dosages and combinations never tested in humans, the study team says. One product combined three different unapproved drugs and another product contained four different drugs.

“We have previously shown that these products may contain individual foreign drugs, but in our new study we found complex combinations of foreign drugs, up to four different drugs in a single product,” Dr. Cohen said.

The presence of these unapproved drugs in supplements, including at supratherapeutic dosages, suggests “serious risks to consumers and weaknesses in the regulatory framework under which supplements are permitted to be introduced in the U.S.,” Dr. Cohen and colleagues wrote.

“We should counsel our patients to avoid over-the-counter ‘smart pills’ until we can be assured as to the safety and efficacy of these products,” said Dr. Cohen.
 

Concerning findings

Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Program at the Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Wilkes-Barre, Penn., said in an interview that two findings are very concerning: the lack of listed ingredients and especially the presence of unlisted drugs at active levels. “What if a person has a sensitivity or allergy to one of the unlisted drugs? This is a safety issue and a consumer issue,” Dr. Finney said.

Despite being widely promoted on television, “over-the-counter supplements are not regulated, so there is no guarantee that they contain what they claim, and there is very little evidence that they help memory and thinking even when they do have the ingredients they claim in the supplement,” said Dr. Finney,

“The best way to stay safe and help memory and thinking is to speak with your health providers about proven treatments that have good safety regulation, so you know what you’re getting, and what you’re getting from it,” Dr. Finney advised.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Cohen has collaborated in research with NSF International, received compensation from UptoDate, and received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts. Dr. Finney has no relevant disclosures.

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

Over-the-counter (OTC) supplements advertised to improve memory and cognitive function may contain unapproved pharmaceutical drugs in potentially dangerous combinations and dosages, new research shows.

“Americans spend more than $600 million on over-the-counter smart pills every year, but we know very little about what is actually in these products,” said Pieter A. Cohen, MD, of the department of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Finding new combinations of drugs [that have] never been tested in humans in over-the-counter brain-boosting supplements is alarming,” said Dr. Cohen.

The study was published online Sept. 23 in Neurology Clinical Practice, a journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Buyer beware

In a search of the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database and the Natural Medicines Database, Dr. Cohen and colleagues identified 10 supplements labeled as containing omberacetam, aniracetam, phenylpiracetam, or oxiracetam – four analogues of piracetam that are not approved for human use in the United States. Piracetam is also not approved in the United States.

In these 10 products, five unapproved drugs were discovered – omberacetam and aniracetam along with three others (phenibut, vinpocetine and picamilon).

By consuming the recommended serving size of these products, consumers could be exposed to pharmaceutical-level dosages of drugs including a maximum of 40.6 mg omberacetam (typical pharmacologic dose 10 mg), 502 mg of aniracetam (typical pharmacologic dose 200-750 mg), 15.4 mg of phenibut (typical dose 250-500 mg), 4.3 mg of vinpocetine (typical dose 5-40 mg), and 90.1 mg of picamilon (typical  dose 50-200 mg), the study team reported.

Several drugs detected in these “smart” pills were not declared on the label, and several declared drugs were not detected in the products. For those products with drug quantities provided on the labels, three-quarters of declared quantities were inaccurate.

Consumers who use these cognitive enhancers could be exposed to amounts of these unapproved drugs that are fourfold greater than pharmaceutical dosages and combinations never tested in humans, the study team says. One product combined three different unapproved drugs and another product contained four different drugs.

“We have previously shown that these products may contain individual foreign drugs, but in our new study we found complex combinations of foreign drugs, up to four different drugs in a single product,” Dr. Cohen said.

The presence of these unapproved drugs in supplements, including at supratherapeutic dosages, suggests “serious risks to consumers and weaknesses in the regulatory framework under which supplements are permitted to be introduced in the U.S.,” Dr. Cohen and colleagues wrote.

“We should counsel our patients to avoid over-the-counter ‘smart pills’ until we can be assured as to the safety and efficacy of these products,” said Dr. Cohen.
 

Concerning findings

Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Program at the Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Wilkes-Barre, Penn., said in an interview that two findings are very concerning: the lack of listed ingredients and especially the presence of unlisted drugs at active levels. “What if a person has a sensitivity or allergy to one of the unlisted drugs? This is a safety issue and a consumer issue,” Dr. Finney said.

Despite being widely promoted on television, “over-the-counter supplements are not regulated, so there is no guarantee that they contain what they claim, and there is very little evidence that they help memory and thinking even when they do have the ingredients they claim in the supplement,” said Dr. Finney,

“The best way to stay safe and help memory and thinking is to speak with your health providers about proven treatments that have good safety regulation, so you know what you’re getting, and what you’re getting from it,” Dr. Finney advised.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Cohen has collaborated in research with NSF International, received compensation from UptoDate, and received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts. Dr. Finney has no relevant disclosures.

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

Over-the-counter (OTC) supplements advertised to improve memory and cognitive function may contain unapproved pharmaceutical drugs in potentially dangerous combinations and dosages, new research shows.

“Americans spend more than $600 million on over-the-counter smart pills every year, but we know very little about what is actually in these products,” said Pieter A. Cohen, MD, of the department of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Finding new combinations of drugs [that have] never been tested in humans in over-the-counter brain-boosting supplements is alarming,” said Dr. Cohen.

The study was published online Sept. 23 in Neurology Clinical Practice, a journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Buyer beware

In a search of the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database and the Natural Medicines Database, Dr. Cohen and colleagues identified 10 supplements labeled as containing omberacetam, aniracetam, phenylpiracetam, or oxiracetam – four analogues of piracetam that are not approved for human use in the United States. Piracetam is also not approved in the United States.

In these 10 products, five unapproved drugs were discovered – omberacetam and aniracetam along with three others (phenibut, vinpocetine and picamilon).

By consuming the recommended serving size of these products, consumers could be exposed to pharmaceutical-level dosages of drugs including a maximum of 40.6 mg omberacetam (typical pharmacologic dose 10 mg), 502 mg of aniracetam (typical pharmacologic dose 200-750 mg), 15.4 mg of phenibut (typical dose 250-500 mg), 4.3 mg of vinpocetine (typical dose 5-40 mg), and 90.1 mg of picamilon (typical  dose 50-200 mg), the study team reported.

Several drugs detected in these “smart” pills were not declared on the label, and several declared drugs were not detected in the products. For those products with drug quantities provided on the labels, three-quarters of declared quantities were inaccurate.

Consumers who use these cognitive enhancers could be exposed to amounts of these unapproved drugs that are fourfold greater than pharmaceutical dosages and combinations never tested in humans, the study team says. One product combined three different unapproved drugs and another product contained four different drugs.

“We have previously shown that these products may contain individual foreign drugs, but in our new study we found complex combinations of foreign drugs, up to four different drugs in a single product,” Dr. Cohen said.

The presence of these unapproved drugs in supplements, including at supratherapeutic dosages, suggests “serious risks to consumers and weaknesses in the regulatory framework under which supplements are permitted to be introduced in the U.S.,” Dr. Cohen and colleagues wrote.

“We should counsel our patients to avoid over-the-counter ‘smart pills’ until we can be assured as to the safety and efficacy of these products,” said Dr. Cohen.
 

Concerning findings

Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Program at the Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Wilkes-Barre, Penn., said in an interview that two findings are very concerning: the lack of listed ingredients and especially the presence of unlisted drugs at active levels. “What if a person has a sensitivity or allergy to one of the unlisted drugs? This is a safety issue and a consumer issue,” Dr. Finney said.

Despite being widely promoted on television, “over-the-counter supplements are not regulated, so there is no guarantee that they contain what they claim, and there is very little evidence that they help memory and thinking even when they do have the ingredients they claim in the supplement,” said Dr. Finney,

“The best way to stay safe and help memory and thinking is to speak with your health providers about proven treatments that have good safety regulation, so you know what you’re getting, and what you’re getting from it,” Dr. Finney advised.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Cohen has collaborated in research with NSF International, received compensation from UptoDate, and received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts. Dr. Finney has no relevant disclosures.

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

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has recommended approval of baricitinib tablets for adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Baricitinib (Olumiant) is already approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

If approved in Europe, it will be the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The CHMP’s positive opinion on baricitinib for AD was based on three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies where the JAK inhibitor was used alone or in combination with topical treatments in adults with moderate to severe AD for whom topical treatments were insufficient or not tolerated. In all three studies, baricitinib was shown to be more effective than placebo in achieving skin that is “clear” or “almost clear” at 16 weeks.

“Patients living with AD face difficulties on a daily basis, and this CHMP opinion marks an important milestone in providing adult AD patients with a new potential treatment option,” Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and allergy, University of Bonn (Germany), said in a company news release.

The most common side effects with baricitinib in clinical trials include increased LDL cholesterol, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache.

Patients receiving baricitinib, particularly in combination with immunosuppressants, are at risk of developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. If a serious infection develops, baricitinib should be stopped until the infection is controlled.

The CHMP’s positive opinion will be sent to the European Commission, which will adopt a final decision regarding an European Union–wide marketing authorization. Once granted, each member state will make decisions about price and reimbursement, taking into account the potential role/use of baricitinib in the context of that country’s national health system.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has recommended approval of baricitinib tablets for adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Baricitinib (Olumiant) is already approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

If approved in Europe, it will be the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The CHMP’s positive opinion on baricitinib for AD was based on three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies where the JAK inhibitor was used alone or in combination with topical treatments in adults with moderate to severe AD for whom topical treatments were insufficient or not tolerated. In all three studies, baricitinib was shown to be more effective than placebo in achieving skin that is “clear” or “almost clear” at 16 weeks.

“Patients living with AD face difficulties on a daily basis, and this CHMP opinion marks an important milestone in providing adult AD patients with a new potential treatment option,” Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and allergy, University of Bonn (Germany), said in a company news release.

The most common side effects with baricitinib in clinical trials include increased LDL cholesterol, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache.

Patients receiving baricitinib, particularly in combination with immunosuppressants, are at risk of developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. If a serious infection develops, baricitinib should be stopped until the infection is controlled.

The CHMP’s positive opinion will be sent to the European Commission, which will adopt a final decision regarding an European Union–wide marketing authorization. Once granted, each member state will make decisions about price and reimbursement, taking into account the potential role/use of baricitinib in the context of that country’s national health system.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has recommended approval of baricitinib tablets for adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Baricitinib (Olumiant) is already approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

If approved in Europe, it will be the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The CHMP’s positive opinion on baricitinib for AD was based on three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies where the JAK inhibitor was used alone or in combination with topical treatments in adults with moderate to severe AD for whom topical treatments were insufficient or not tolerated. In all three studies, baricitinib was shown to be more effective than placebo in achieving skin that is “clear” or “almost clear” at 16 weeks.

“Patients living with AD face difficulties on a daily basis, and this CHMP opinion marks an important milestone in providing adult AD patients with a new potential treatment option,” Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and allergy, University of Bonn (Germany), said in a company news release.

The most common side effects with baricitinib in clinical trials include increased LDL cholesterol, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache.

Patients receiving baricitinib, particularly in combination with immunosuppressants, are at risk of developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. If a serious infection develops, baricitinib should be stopped until the infection is controlled.

The CHMP’s positive opinion will be sent to the European Commission, which will adopt a final decision regarding an European Union–wide marketing authorization. Once granted, each member state will make decisions about price and reimbursement, taking into account the potential role/use of baricitinib in the context of that country’s national health system.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.