Randy Dotinga

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Naloxone can reverse opioid overdoses, but time is crucial and its effectiveness wanes if medics can’t arrive right away. Now, a new app links overdose victims or their companions to trained volunteers nearby who may be able to administer the drug much faster.

Over a 1-year period, about half of 112 participants in a Philadelphia trial said they’d responded to overdoses via the app, and about half used it to report overdoses, according to a study released at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

“Thanks to the app, there may have been a life saved about twice a month that otherwise wouldn’t have been,” said public health researcher and study coauthor Stephen Lankenau, PhD, of Drexel University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

Philadelphia has the largest opioid overdose rate of any large city, Dr. Lankenau said, and people who overdose are often reluctant to call 911. “Police are often alerted when it’s determined that it’s a drug-related call. They’re concerned that police could show up and someone will get arrested.”

However, the app, called UnityPhilly, doesn’t remove professional medics from the picture. It’s designed to be a supplement to the existing first-response system – “it’s not meant to replace 911” – and allow a faster response to overdoses when minutes matter, Dr. Lankenau said.

“If someone is adamantly opposed to calling 911,” he said, “this may not be the best intervention for them.”

Here’s how the app works: Participants who overdose themselves or witness an overdose can send out an alert to nearby app users. When an alert goes out, the app also attempts to dial 911, although the participant can bypass this.

Nearby responders can reply by pressing “En route” and then go to the address of the overdose with a provided supply of naloxone (Narcan). The amateur responders, many of whom are or were opioid users themselves, are trained in how to administer the drug.

The study authors recruited 112 participants from the Philadelphia neighborhood of Kensington and tracked them from 2019 to 2020. About half (n = 57) reported using opioids within the past 30 days, and those participants had an average age of 42 years, were 54% men, and were 74% non-Hispanic white. Only 19% were employed, and 42% had been recently homeless. Nearly 80% had overdosed before, and all had witnessed overdoses.

The other participants (n = 55), defined as “community members,” had less experience with opioids (44% had misused them before), although 91% had witnessed overdoses. Their average age was 42 years, 56% were women, 53% were employed, and 16% had been recently homeless.

Over a 1-year period, 51% of the opioid-using participants used the app to report an overdose, as did 46% of the community members. The percentages who reported being en route to an overdose was 47% (opioid users) and 46% (community members).

“The idea of people being trained as community responders has been around for quite a while, and there are hundreds of programs across the country. People are willing to carry naloxone and respond if they see an overdose in front of them,” Dr. Lankenau said. “Here, you have people becoming civilian responders to events they wouldn’t otherwise know about. This creates a community of individuals who can help out immediately and augment the work that emergency responders do.”

Opioid users who download the app may be drawn to the idea of responders who are nonjudgmental and supportive, compared with professional medics. “The system has not done well by people with substance abuse disorders,” said addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver. “In terms of overdose reversal, you may prefer that someone else [other than a medic] give you Narcan and support you through this experience. When it’s over after you’re reversed, you have a sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms. You feel terrible, and you don’t want to be sitting in an ambulance. You want to be in a supportive environment.”

As for adverse effects, there was concern that opioid users might take more risks with an app safety net in place. However, no one reported more risky behavior in interviews, Dr. Lankenau said.

The 3-year program costs $215,000, he said, and the next step is to get funding for a Philadelphia citywide trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Lankenau reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by NIDA.

Naloxone can reverse opioid overdoses, but time is crucial and its effectiveness wanes if medics can’t arrive right away. Now, a new app links overdose victims or their companions to trained volunteers nearby who may be able to administer the drug much faster.

Over a 1-year period, about half of 112 participants in a Philadelphia trial said they’d responded to overdoses via the app, and about half used it to report overdoses, according to a study released at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

“Thanks to the app, there may have been a life saved about twice a month that otherwise wouldn’t have been,” said public health researcher and study coauthor Stephen Lankenau, PhD, of Drexel University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

Philadelphia has the largest opioid overdose rate of any large city, Dr. Lankenau said, and people who overdose are often reluctant to call 911. “Police are often alerted when it’s determined that it’s a drug-related call. They’re concerned that police could show up and someone will get arrested.”

However, the app, called UnityPhilly, doesn’t remove professional medics from the picture. It’s designed to be a supplement to the existing first-response system – “it’s not meant to replace 911” – and allow a faster response to overdoses when minutes matter, Dr. Lankenau said.

“If someone is adamantly opposed to calling 911,” he said, “this may not be the best intervention for them.”

Here’s how the app works: Participants who overdose themselves or witness an overdose can send out an alert to nearby app users. When an alert goes out, the app also attempts to dial 911, although the participant can bypass this.

Nearby responders can reply by pressing “En route” and then go to the address of the overdose with a provided supply of naloxone (Narcan). The amateur responders, many of whom are or were opioid users themselves, are trained in how to administer the drug.

The study authors recruited 112 participants from the Philadelphia neighborhood of Kensington and tracked them from 2019 to 2020. About half (n = 57) reported using opioids within the past 30 days, and those participants had an average age of 42 years, were 54% men, and were 74% non-Hispanic white. Only 19% were employed, and 42% had been recently homeless. Nearly 80% had overdosed before, and all had witnessed overdoses.

The other participants (n = 55), defined as “community members,” had less experience with opioids (44% had misused them before), although 91% had witnessed overdoses. Their average age was 42 years, 56% were women, 53% were employed, and 16% had been recently homeless.

Over a 1-year period, 51% of the opioid-using participants used the app to report an overdose, as did 46% of the community members. The percentages who reported being en route to an overdose was 47% (opioid users) and 46% (community members).

“The idea of people being trained as community responders has been around for quite a while, and there are hundreds of programs across the country. People are willing to carry naloxone and respond if they see an overdose in front of them,” Dr. Lankenau said. “Here, you have people becoming civilian responders to events they wouldn’t otherwise know about. This creates a community of individuals who can help out immediately and augment the work that emergency responders do.”

Opioid users who download the app may be drawn to the idea of responders who are nonjudgmental and supportive, compared with professional medics. “The system has not done well by people with substance abuse disorders,” said addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver. “In terms of overdose reversal, you may prefer that someone else [other than a medic] give you Narcan and support you through this experience. When it’s over after you’re reversed, you have a sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms. You feel terrible, and you don’t want to be sitting in an ambulance. You want to be in a supportive environment.”

As for adverse effects, there was concern that opioid users might take more risks with an app safety net in place. However, no one reported more risky behavior in interviews, Dr. Lankenau said.

The 3-year program costs $215,000, he said, and the next step is to get funding for a Philadelphia citywide trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Lankenau reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by NIDA.

Naloxone can reverse opioid overdoses, but time is crucial and its effectiveness wanes if medics can’t arrive right away. Now, a new app links overdose victims or their companions to trained volunteers nearby who may be able to administer the drug much faster.

Over a 1-year period, about half of 112 participants in a Philadelphia trial said they’d responded to overdoses via the app, and about half used it to report overdoses, according to a study released at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

“Thanks to the app, there may have been a life saved about twice a month that otherwise wouldn’t have been,” said public health researcher and study coauthor Stephen Lankenau, PhD, of Drexel University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

Philadelphia has the largest opioid overdose rate of any large city, Dr. Lankenau said, and people who overdose are often reluctant to call 911. “Police are often alerted when it’s determined that it’s a drug-related call. They’re concerned that police could show up and someone will get arrested.”

However, the app, called UnityPhilly, doesn’t remove professional medics from the picture. It’s designed to be a supplement to the existing first-response system – “it’s not meant to replace 911” – and allow a faster response to overdoses when minutes matter, Dr. Lankenau said.

“If someone is adamantly opposed to calling 911,” he said, “this may not be the best intervention for them.”

Here’s how the app works: Participants who overdose themselves or witness an overdose can send out an alert to nearby app users. When an alert goes out, the app also attempts to dial 911, although the participant can bypass this.

Nearby responders can reply by pressing “En route” and then go to the address of the overdose with a provided supply of naloxone (Narcan). The amateur responders, many of whom are or were opioid users themselves, are trained in how to administer the drug.

The study authors recruited 112 participants from the Philadelphia neighborhood of Kensington and tracked them from 2019 to 2020. About half (n = 57) reported using opioids within the past 30 days, and those participants had an average age of 42 years, were 54% men, and were 74% non-Hispanic white. Only 19% were employed, and 42% had been recently homeless. Nearly 80% had overdosed before, and all had witnessed overdoses.

The other participants (n = 55), defined as “community members,” had less experience with opioids (44% had misused them before), although 91% had witnessed overdoses. Their average age was 42 years, 56% were women, 53% were employed, and 16% had been recently homeless.

Over a 1-year period, 51% of the opioid-using participants used the app to report an overdose, as did 46% of the community members. The percentages who reported being en route to an overdose was 47% (opioid users) and 46% (community members).

“The idea of people being trained as community responders has been around for quite a while, and there are hundreds of programs across the country. People are willing to carry naloxone and respond if they see an overdose in front of them,” Dr. Lankenau said. “Here, you have people becoming civilian responders to events they wouldn’t otherwise know about. This creates a community of individuals who can help out immediately and augment the work that emergency responders do.”

Opioid users who download the app may be drawn to the idea of responders who are nonjudgmental and supportive, compared with professional medics. “The system has not done well by people with substance abuse disorders,” said addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver. “In terms of overdose reversal, you may prefer that someone else [other than a medic] give you Narcan and support you through this experience. When it’s over after you’re reversed, you have a sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms. You feel terrible, and you don’t want to be sitting in an ambulance. You want to be in a supportive environment.”

As for adverse effects, there was concern that opioid users might take more risks with an app safety net in place. However, no one reported more risky behavior in interviews, Dr. Lankenau said.

The 3-year program costs $215,000, he said, and the next step is to get funding for a Philadelphia citywide trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Lankenau reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by NIDA.

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the extremely common presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds. More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” said study lead author addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Researchers in Vancouver distributed take-home fentanyl test strip kits at 10 sites that allow users to test their illicit drugs. The 218 participants performed 1,680 tests, mainly (73%) for opioids, over 3 months in 2019. Of the participants, 61% were male, and the average age was 36 (interquartile range, 29-47). About 30% described themselves as indigenous Canadians (First Nations).

About 90% of the opioid samples tested at home were positive for fentanyl, about the same level as samples tested at clinics. Fentanyl is very potent and linked to the huge rise in overdose deaths in the United States.

Fentanyl test strips aren’t new. According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, they originally were developed to detect fentanyl in urine samples but were jury-rigged in Vancouver to work on samples of illicit drugs. “We literally just repurposed it,” Dr. Klaire said. “It’s the same strip.”

Users test their drugs by dissolving a small sample in water. Then then dip the test strip, which provides readings similar to those in a pregnancy test. If a sample turns up positive for fentanyl, Dr. Klaire said, users may discard the drug or “be more careful with it.”

When asked what they would do if a sample turned up positive, 27% said they’d make a “positive change,” such as using less or using more slowly (n = 45) or making sure that someone else is present in case of an overdose (n = 26). But most, 71%, reported no change in behavior.

Previously, researchers in Rhode Island and North Carolina also found that some users adopted safer behaviors – such as throwing out their drugs or using less often – after testing their drugs with the strips.

The strips cost about 75 cents, Dr. Klaire said.

Harm-reduction strategies are controversial, and fentanyl test strips aren’t any exemption. “The entire approach is based on the premise that a drug user poised to use a drug is making rational choices, is weighing pros and cons, and is thinking completely logically about his or her drug use. Based on my clinical experience, I know this could not be further from the truth,” wrote Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, assistant secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use with the Department of Health & Human Services, in a 2018 blog post.

But Dr. Klaire said the patients in the new study are highly dependent on opioids. “The drug supply is heavily contaminated [with fentanyl],” he said, “but even when people know it’s contaminated, they still need to go ahead and use it.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who has conducted fentanyl test strip research, called the study results “compelling.”

“The researchers found that the fentanyl test strips had a very high level of acceptability – over 95% said they would use the strips again – which is remarkably similar to what we found in our work here in Rhode Island,” he said. “Taken together, these studies show that take-home test strips are a feasible, acceptable, and effective strategy for people who use drugs to reduce their risk of fentanyl overdose.”

He added that “fentanyl test strips help people make more informed decisions about their drug use and reducing their risk of overdose.”

However, he said, “one of important limitations of the strips is that they do not detect all contaminants that put persons at risk of overdose. Just because a test result is negative does not mean that the drug is 100% safe.”

Kimberly Sue, MD, PhD, medical director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, said in an interview that the research is “important,” but noted that many drug users already have been using fentanyl test strips on their own. “We should be focusing on investing in variety of other interventions that could keep more people safe against nonfatal and fatal opioid overdoses, including structural interventions such as safe supply, housing and community with appropriate supports, low barrier access to medication for opioid use disorder, and safe consumption spaces,” she said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Sue reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with one of the coauthors of the Vancouver study.

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the extremely common presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds. More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” said study lead author addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Researchers in Vancouver distributed take-home fentanyl test strip kits at 10 sites that allow users to test their illicit drugs. The 218 participants performed 1,680 tests, mainly (73%) for opioids, over 3 months in 2019. Of the participants, 61% were male, and the average age was 36 (interquartile range, 29-47). About 30% described themselves as indigenous Canadians (First Nations).

About 90% of the opioid samples tested at home were positive for fentanyl, about the same level as samples tested at clinics. Fentanyl is very potent and linked to the huge rise in overdose deaths in the United States.

Fentanyl test strips aren’t new. According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, they originally were developed to detect fentanyl in urine samples but were jury-rigged in Vancouver to work on samples of illicit drugs. “We literally just repurposed it,” Dr. Klaire said. “It’s the same strip.”

Users test their drugs by dissolving a small sample in water. Then then dip the test strip, which provides readings similar to those in a pregnancy test. If a sample turns up positive for fentanyl, Dr. Klaire said, users may discard the drug or “be more careful with it.”

When asked what they would do if a sample turned up positive, 27% said they’d make a “positive change,” such as using less or using more slowly (n = 45) or making sure that someone else is present in case of an overdose (n = 26). But most, 71%, reported no change in behavior.

Previously, researchers in Rhode Island and North Carolina also found that some users adopted safer behaviors – such as throwing out their drugs or using less often – after testing their drugs with the strips.

The strips cost about 75 cents, Dr. Klaire said.

Harm-reduction strategies are controversial, and fentanyl test strips aren’t any exemption. “The entire approach is based on the premise that a drug user poised to use a drug is making rational choices, is weighing pros and cons, and is thinking completely logically about his or her drug use. Based on my clinical experience, I know this could not be further from the truth,” wrote Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, assistant secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use with the Department of Health & Human Services, in a 2018 blog post.

But Dr. Klaire said the patients in the new study are highly dependent on opioids. “The drug supply is heavily contaminated [with fentanyl],” he said, “but even when people know it’s contaminated, they still need to go ahead and use it.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who has conducted fentanyl test strip research, called the study results “compelling.”

“The researchers found that the fentanyl test strips had a very high level of acceptability – over 95% said they would use the strips again – which is remarkably similar to what we found in our work here in Rhode Island,” he said. “Taken together, these studies show that take-home test strips are a feasible, acceptable, and effective strategy for people who use drugs to reduce their risk of fentanyl overdose.”

He added that “fentanyl test strips help people make more informed decisions about their drug use and reducing their risk of overdose.”

However, he said, “one of important limitations of the strips is that they do not detect all contaminants that put persons at risk of overdose. Just because a test result is negative does not mean that the drug is 100% safe.”

Kimberly Sue, MD, PhD, medical director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, said in an interview that the research is “important,” but noted that many drug users already have been using fentanyl test strips on their own. “We should be focusing on investing in variety of other interventions that could keep more people safe against nonfatal and fatal opioid overdoses, including structural interventions such as safe supply, housing and community with appropriate supports, low barrier access to medication for opioid use disorder, and safe consumption spaces,” she said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Sue reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with one of the coauthors of the Vancouver study.

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the extremely common presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds. More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” said study lead author addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Researchers in Vancouver distributed take-home fentanyl test strip kits at 10 sites that allow users to test their illicit drugs. The 218 participants performed 1,680 tests, mainly (73%) for opioids, over 3 months in 2019. Of the participants, 61% were male, and the average age was 36 (interquartile range, 29-47). About 30% described themselves as indigenous Canadians (First Nations).

About 90% of the opioid samples tested at home were positive for fentanyl, about the same level as samples tested at clinics. Fentanyl is very potent and linked to the huge rise in overdose deaths in the United States.

Fentanyl test strips aren’t new. According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, they originally were developed to detect fentanyl in urine samples but were jury-rigged in Vancouver to work on samples of illicit drugs. “We literally just repurposed it,” Dr. Klaire said. “It’s the same strip.”

Users test their drugs by dissolving a small sample in water. Then then dip the test strip, which provides readings similar to those in a pregnancy test. If a sample turns up positive for fentanyl, Dr. Klaire said, users may discard the drug or “be more careful with it.”

When asked what they would do if a sample turned up positive, 27% said they’d make a “positive change,” such as using less or using more slowly (n = 45) or making sure that someone else is present in case of an overdose (n = 26). But most, 71%, reported no change in behavior.

Previously, researchers in Rhode Island and North Carolina also found that some users adopted safer behaviors – such as throwing out their drugs or using less often – after testing their drugs with the strips.

The strips cost about 75 cents, Dr. Klaire said.

Harm-reduction strategies are controversial, and fentanyl test strips aren’t any exemption. “The entire approach is based on the premise that a drug user poised to use a drug is making rational choices, is weighing pros and cons, and is thinking completely logically about his or her drug use. Based on my clinical experience, I know this could not be further from the truth,” wrote Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, assistant secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use with the Department of Health & Human Services, in a 2018 blog post.

But Dr. Klaire said the patients in the new study are highly dependent on opioids. “The drug supply is heavily contaminated [with fentanyl],” he said, “but even when people know it’s contaminated, they still need to go ahead and use it.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who has conducted fentanyl test strip research, called the study results “compelling.”

“The researchers found that the fentanyl test strips had a very high level of acceptability – over 95% said they would use the strips again – which is remarkably similar to what we found in our work here in Rhode Island,” he said. “Taken together, these studies show that take-home test strips are a feasible, acceptable, and effective strategy for people who use drugs to reduce their risk of fentanyl overdose.”

He added that “fentanyl test strips help people make more informed decisions about their drug use and reducing their risk of overdose.”

However, he said, “one of important limitations of the strips is that they do not detect all contaminants that put persons at risk of overdose. Just because a test result is negative does not mean that the drug is 100% safe.”

Kimberly Sue, MD, PhD, medical director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, said in an interview that the research is “important,” but noted that many drug users already have been using fentanyl test strips on their own. “We should be focusing on investing in variety of other interventions that could keep more people safe against nonfatal and fatal opioid overdoses, including structural interventions such as safe supply, housing and community with appropriate supports, low barrier access to medication for opioid use disorder, and safe consumption spaces,” she said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Sue reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with one of the coauthors of the Vancouver study.

Early evidence suggests that opioid overdoses and deaths are on the rise this year, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse warned colleagues, although it’s not clear whether the coronavirus pandemic is responsible for the trend.

The picture is complicated since COVID-19 could have both positive and negative effects on substance use, Nora D. Volkow, MD, said in a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. However, she said, one thing is clear: The pandemic marks an opportunity to investigate new strategies and potentially reform treatment.

“We are being faced with an unknown world, and the lack of information curtails our capacity to implement interventions in the most effective way,” Dr. Volkow said. “There’s an urgency to obtain these data. All of you out there in the trenches have an opportunity to help gather this information in a way that can be integrated and deployed rapidly for us to guide practices and treatment.”

It’s too early to know for certain how the pandemic is affecting substance use in the United States, since statistics are sparse and COVID-19 is still relatively new. Still, local news reports have suggested overdose deaths have risen, Dr. Volkow said.

And, she noted, the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program – which tracks overdoses nationwide – issued 191% more “spike alerts” from January to April this year, compared with the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts started going up in January, several weeks before mass numbers of COVID-19 cases began to be diagnosed.

Dr. Volkow noted the uncertainty about the numbers but said several factors could cause the pandemic to boost overdoses:

• Stress and isolation. “My first fear was that overdoses are going to go up because the stress is actually extraordinarily difficult,” she said. “Social distancing is making it very difficult for individuals with substance use disorder or opioid use disorder to get the community support that keeps them from relapsing,” such as methadone clinics and syringe exchange programs.
• Unwitnessed opioid overdoses. Social distancing could “lead to overdoses that nobody has observed, so no one can administer naloxone,” she said.
• Treatment decisions affected by stigma. “Our health systems will be overburdened, and they have to make decisions about which patients to treat,” she said. Stigma could play a very important role in interfering with the treatment of individuals with substance use disorders.”
• Drug-related vulnerabilities. On another front, she said, substance users may be especially vulnerable to the pandemic, because the drugs target multiple body systems that worsen COVID-19 outcomes. These include not only the lungs but also the cardiac and metabolic systems, she said.

For example, “if you have a long history of drug use, you’re going to be much more likely to have a pulmonary disease,” she said. “We know that pulmonary disease is a risk factor for getting COVID and for much worse outcomes.”

But the pandemic could also help in the fight against substance use. For one thing, she said, the pandemic could disrupt drug markets and make it harder for users to get illicit products.

In yet another complication, there is an ongoing debate over whether tobacco use could actually be protective against COVID-19. Research into nicotine patches as a treatment is in the works, she said.

What now? Dr. Volkow said one priority going forward should be an evaluation of virtual medicine. “We have virtual technologies that have enabled us to do telemedicine to provide mental health support and hotlines, as well as virtual support meetings,” she said. “These have proliferated and have served to a certain extent to compensate for some of the deficit from the erosion of the community support systems that exist.”

Now, she said, we should evaluate which interventions are effective, which patients they help, and the components that make them work.

There are other opportunities for useful investigations, she said. For example, researchers could examine the effects of COVID-related changes in policy, such as the federal government allowing more methadone users to take doses home and expanded telemedicine policy allowing more remote prescriptions.

“If we can show that the outcomes are as good or better [than before] then we may be able to transform these practices that make it so very difficult for so many patients to get access to treatment and to sustain treatment – but have not been questioned for years and years.”

Dr. Volkow reported no relevant disclosures.

Early evidence suggests that opioid overdoses and deaths are on the rise this year, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse warned colleagues, although it’s not clear whether the coronavirus pandemic is responsible for the trend.

The picture is complicated since COVID-19 could have both positive and negative effects on substance use, Nora D. Volkow, MD, said in a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. However, she said, one thing is clear: The pandemic marks an opportunity to investigate new strategies and potentially reform treatment.

“We are being faced with an unknown world, and the lack of information curtails our capacity to implement interventions in the most effective way,” Dr. Volkow said. “There’s an urgency to obtain these data. All of you out there in the trenches have an opportunity to help gather this information in a way that can be integrated and deployed rapidly for us to guide practices and treatment.”

It’s too early to know for certain how the pandemic is affecting substance use in the United States, since statistics are sparse and COVID-19 is still relatively new. Still, local news reports have suggested overdose deaths have risen, Dr. Volkow said.

And, she noted, the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program – which tracks overdoses nationwide – issued 191% more “spike alerts” from January to April this year, compared with the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts started going up in January, several weeks before mass numbers of COVID-19 cases began to be diagnosed.

Dr. Volkow noted the uncertainty about the numbers but said several factors could cause the pandemic to boost overdoses:

• Stress and isolation. “My first fear was that overdoses are going to go up because the stress is actually extraordinarily difficult,” she said. “Social distancing is making it very difficult for individuals with substance use disorder or opioid use disorder to get the community support that keeps them from relapsing,” such as methadone clinics and syringe exchange programs.
• Unwitnessed opioid overdoses. Social distancing could “lead to overdoses that nobody has observed, so no one can administer naloxone,” she said.
• Treatment decisions affected by stigma. “Our health systems will be overburdened, and they have to make decisions about which patients to treat,” she said. Stigma could play a very important role in interfering with the treatment of individuals with substance use disorders.”
• Drug-related vulnerabilities. On another front, she said, substance users may be especially vulnerable to the pandemic, because the drugs target multiple body systems that worsen COVID-19 outcomes. These include not only the lungs but also the cardiac and metabolic systems, she said.

For example, “if you have a long history of drug use, you’re going to be much more likely to have a pulmonary disease,” she said. “We know that pulmonary disease is a risk factor for getting COVID and for much worse outcomes.”

But the pandemic could also help in the fight against substance use. For one thing, she said, the pandemic could disrupt drug markets and make it harder for users to get illicit products.

In yet another complication, there is an ongoing debate over whether tobacco use could actually be protective against COVID-19. Research into nicotine patches as a treatment is in the works, she said.

What now? Dr. Volkow said one priority going forward should be an evaluation of virtual medicine. “We have virtual technologies that have enabled us to do telemedicine to provide mental health support and hotlines, as well as virtual support meetings,” she said. “These have proliferated and have served to a certain extent to compensate for some of the deficit from the erosion of the community support systems that exist.”

Now, she said, we should evaluate which interventions are effective, which patients they help, and the components that make them work.

There are other opportunities for useful investigations, she said. For example, researchers could examine the effects of COVID-related changes in policy, such as the federal government allowing more methadone users to take doses home and expanded telemedicine policy allowing more remote prescriptions.

“If we can show that the outcomes are as good or better [than before] then we may be able to transform these practices that make it so very difficult for so many patients to get access to treatment and to sustain treatment – but have not been questioned for years and years.”

Dr. Volkow reported no relevant disclosures.

Early evidence suggests that opioid overdoses and deaths are on the rise this year, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse warned colleagues, although it’s not clear whether the coronavirus pandemic is responsible for the trend.

The picture is complicated since COVID-19 could have both positive and negative effects on substance use, Nora D. Volkow, MD, said in a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. However, she said, one thing is clear: The pandemic marks an opportunity to investigate new strategies and potentially reform treatment.

“We are being faced with an unknown world, and the lack of information curtails our capacity to implement interventions in the most effective way,” Dr. Volkow said. “There’s an urgency to obtain these data. All of you out there in the trenches have an opportunity to help gather this information in a way that can be integrated and deployed rapidly for us to guide practices and treatment.”

It’s too early to know for certain how the pandemic is affecting substance use in the United States, since statistics are sparse and COVID-19 is still relatively new. Still, local news reports have suggested overdose deaths have risen, Dr. Volkow said.

And, she noted, the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program – which tracks overdoses nationwide – issued 191% more “spike alerts” from January to April this year, compared with the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts started going up in January, several weeks before mass numbers of COVID-19 cases began to be diagnosed.

Dr. Volkow noted the uncertainty about the numbers but said several factors could cause the pandemic to boost overdoses:

• Stress and isolation. “My first fear was that overdoses are going to go up because the stress is actually extraordinarily difficult,” she said. “Social distancing is making it very difficult for individuals with substance use disorder or opioid use disorder to get the community support that keeps them from relapsing,” such as methadone clinics and syringe exchange programs.
• Unwitnessed opioid overdoses. Social distancing could “lead to overdoses that nobody has observed, so no one can administer naloxone,” she said.
• Treatment decisions affected by stigma. “Our health systems will be overburdened, and they have to make decisions about which patients to treat,” she said. Stigma could play a very important role in interfering with the treatment of individuals with substance use disorders.”
• Drug-related vulnerabilities. On another front, she said, substance users may be especially vulnerable to the pandemic, because the drugs target multiple body systems that worsen COVID-19 outcomes. These include not only the lungs but also the cardiac and metabolic systems, she said.

For example, “if you have a long history of drug use, you’re going to be much more likely to have a pulmonary disease,” she said. “We know that pulmonary disease is a risk factor for getting COVID and for much worse outcomes.”

But the pandemic could also help in the fight against substance use. For one thing, she said, the pandemic could disrupt drug markets and make it harder for users to get illicit products.

In yet another complication, there is an ongoing debate over whether tobacco use could actually be protective against COVID-19. Research into nicotine patches as a treatment is in the works, she said.

What now? Dr. Volkow said one priority going forward should be an evaluation of virtual medicine. “We have virtual technologies that have enabled us to do telemedicine to provide mental health support and hotlines, as well as virtual support meetings,” she said. “These have proliferated and have served to a certain extent to compensate for some of the deficit from the erosion of the community support systems that exist.”

Now, she said, we should evaluate which interventions are effective, which patients they help, and the components that make them work.

There are other opportunities for useful investigations, she said. For example, researchers could examine the effects of COVID-related changes in policy, such as the federal government allowing more methadone users to take doses home and expanded telemedicine policy allowing more remote prescriptions.

“If we can show that the outcomes are as good or better [than before] then we may be able to transform these practices that make it so very difficult for so many patients to get access to treatment and to sustain treatment – but have not been questioned for years and years.”

Dr. Volkow reported no relevant disclosures.

Maryland psychiatrist Annette Hanson, MD, hasn’t changed her morning routine much since the coronavirus pandemic began. She still avoids putting on a necklace or earrings, which could be torn away or used as a ligature, and heads to work.

The only difference is that Dr. Hanson wears easy-to-clean scrubs instead of business attire. “That way I can strip down and shower as soon as I get home. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I’m being cautious,” said Dr. Hanson, a forensic psychiatrist who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland and at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

As many of her colleagues shelter in place and work from home with the help of telemedicine, prison psychiatrists such as Dr. Hanson continue to evaluate and treat patients in person – behind bars. That hasn’t changed. But so much else has, from the elimination of family visits to the suspension of many court hearings, leaving already vulnerable inmates in limbo.

“Prisons continue to be a poor place to receive mental health care. The setting is destructive to physical and mental health, and the pandemic has made it worse,” said Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who treats inmates in several states.

Like the inmates they treat, prison psychiatrists are facing unique challenges that test their powers of creativity and resilience. “The most challenging part is to continue care in a system that has essentially been frozen in place,” Dr. Hanson said.

As of June 9, nearly 44,000 inmates in federal and state prisons had tested positive for coronavirus, according to the Associated Press and the Marshall Project. At least 500 people have died. Those numbers do not include inmates and staff members in local jails or juvenile detention centers.

Statistics about COVID-19 in prison staff members are incomplete since only 20 states reported them, and it’s not clear where they contracted the virus. Even so, at least 9,180 cases in staff members were reported, along with 38 deaths, the AP/Marshall Project report.

Using telemedicine is impossible at many jails and prisons, forcing many psychiatrists to protect themselves and their patients as best they can. At the Los Angeles County Jail, which does not use telemedicine, group sessions have been greatly reduced. Instead, psychiatrists are spending more time talking to inmates at the doors to cells or modules, said supervising psychiatrist Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD.

The risk of transmission still exists, he said. “Our health system has a comprehensive testing, monitoring, and isolation system in place now to slow the spread and flatten the curve,” Dr. Simpson said. “However, once COVID enters any correctional facility, preventing it from spreading entirely is difficult or impossible given the nature of the living arrangements.”

In interviews, psychiatrists said inmates are more stressed by the limitations spawned by the pandemic than the risk of infection. Many facilities have banned in-person visits, and telephone calls are an expensive alternative, said Nicolas Badre, MD, who treats inmates at jails in the San Diego region.

“That one lifeline you had is no longer there. The second lifeline is that your public defender will get you a plea deal, but they’ve postponed hearings,” he said. “I’ve seen cases of folks who are more anxious and more depressed because COVID is delaying their case or because they’re unable to speak with their families and friends.”

Restrictions on contact with people on the outside are especially difficult for inmates at risk of psychosis, Dr. Badre said. “You add those two [limitations], and how does that not sound to someone with schizophrenia like the government is out to get you? And when someone asks you to wear a mask, how do you trust them?”

According to Dr. Lee, some patients with severe mental illness are unable to comprehend the risk of the pandemic, and they fail to protect themselves. While she’s begun to rely on telemedicine, “it’s a very blunt instrument. Many of my patients are very sick and less able to interact with a screen. And sometimes you’re exhausted at the end of the day because you’ve been yelling at the screen and trying different ways to gain the attention of individuals who are responding to external stimuli and can’t engage.”

The pandemic has improved conditions in prisons and jails on one front: Many are releasing inmates to lower the risk of spreading infection. And Dr. Badre said, “a lot of people are doing just fine, finding themselves to be completely resilient and finding meaning at this time.”

Other than anxiety, the psychiatrists did not report seeing higher percentages of any specific conditions. And they said they are not prescribing any more medications than before COVID-19. But many of the perennial treatments for anxiety – improving the diet, getting out and exercising, developing a hobby, reaching out to others – can be difficult at the best of times behind bars. Those treatments might be impossible now.

At the juvenile justice system in the Chicago area, for example, the pandemic has forced the cancellation of activities such as writing, taking art classes, and barber training. In-person visits are banned, too. “For a lot of them, seeing their family relieves stress, makes them feel more hopeful. It gives them a sense of normalcy to hug their mom,” said Yana Oskin, MD.

But it’s still possible to urge the young people to read, write, work with puzzles, and exercise daily even if it’s just in their rooms, she said. “While their movements have been limited, they do still get to go outside. If they can’t go to the gym, the recreation specialist comes to their pod.”

And while some psychiatrists and older inmates might not be thrilled to have to adjust to therapy via screen during the pandemic, young people are a different story. Dr. Oskin is working with them via telemedicine, which allowed at least one inmate to gain a kind of victory.

“We have an assistant who sets up Skype visits, and the camera was not angled properly,” she recalled. “She couldn’t figure out. The kid sat down and fixed it in 2 seconds.”

Dr. Hanson is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Lee is the author of “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences and Cures” (Wiley Blackwell, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Simpson is coauthor of “Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom” (Wiley Blackwell, 2012). He has no other disclosures. Dr. Badre and Dr. Oskin reported no disclosures.

Maryland psychiatrist Annette Hanson, MD, hasn’t changed her morning routine much since the coronavirus pandemic began. She still avoids putting on a necklace or earrings, which could be torn away or used as a ligature, and heads to work.

The only difference is that Dr. Hanson wears easy-to-clean scrubs instead of business attire. “That way I can strip down and shower as soon as I get home. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I’m being cautious,” said Dr. Hanson, a forensic psychiatrist who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland and at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

As many of her colleagues shelter in place and work from home with the help of telemedicine, prison psychiatrists such as Dr. Hanson continue to evaluate and treat patients in person – behind bars. That hasn’t changed. But so much else has, from the elimination of family visits to the suspension of many court hearings, leaving already vulnerable inmates in limbo.

“Prisons continue to be a poor place to receive mental health care. The setting is destructive to physical and mental health, and the pandemic has made it worse,” said Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who treats inmates in several states.

Like the inmates they treat, prison psychiatrists are facing unique challenges that test their powers of creativity and resilience. “The most challenging part is to continue care in a system that has essentially been frozen in place,” Dr. Hanson said.

As of June 9, nearly 44,000 inmates in federal and state prisons had tested positive for coronavirus, according to the Associated Press and the Marshall Project. At least 500 people have died. Those numbers do not include inmates and staff members in local jails or juvenile detention centers.

Statistics about COVID-19 in prison staff members are incomplete since only 20 states reported them, and it’s not clear where they contracted the virus. Even so, at least 9,180 cases in staff members were reported, along with 38 deaths, the AP/Marshall Project report.

Using telemedicine is impossible at many jails and prisons, forcing many psychiatrists to protect themselves and their patients as best they can. At the Los Angeles County Jail, which does not use telemedicine, group sessions have been greatly reduced. Instead, psychiatrists are spending more time talking to inmates at the doors to cells or modules, said supervising psychiatrist Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD.

The risk of transmission still exists, he said. “Our health system has a comprehensive testing, monitoring, and isolation system in place now to slow the spread and flatten the curve,” Dr. Simpson said. “However, once COVID enters any correctional facility, preventing it from spreading entirely is difficult or impossible given the nature of the living arrangements.”

In interviews, psychiatrists said inmates are more stressed by the limitations spawned by the pandemic than the risk of infection. Many facilities have banned in-person visits, and telephone calls are an expensive alternative, said Nicolas Badre, MD, who treats inmates at jails in the San Diego region.

“That one lifeline you had is no longer there. The second lifeline is that your public defender will get you a plea deal, but they’ve postponed hearings,” he said. “I’ve seen cases of folks who are more anxious and more depressed because COVID is delaying their case or because they’re unable to speak with their families and friends.”

Restrictions on contact with people on the outside are especially difficult for inmates at risk of psychosis, Dr. Badre said. “You add those two [limitations], and how does that not sound to someone with schizophrenia like the government is out to get you? And when someone asks you to wear a mask, how do you trust them?”

According to Dr. Lee, some patients with severe mental illness are unable to comprehend the risk of the pandemic, and they fail to protect themselves. While she’s begun to rely on telemedicine, “it’s a very blunt instrument. Many of my patients are very sick and less able to interact with a screen. And sometimes you’re exhausted at the end of the day because you’ve been yelling at the screen and trying different ways to gain the attention of individuals who are responding to external stimuli and can’t engage.”

The pandemic has improved conditions in prisons and jails on one front: Many are releasing inmates to lower the risk of spreading infection. And Dr. Badre said, “a lot of people are doing just fine, finding themselves to be completely resilient and finding meaning at this time.”

Other than anxiety, the psychiatrists did not report seeing higher percentages of any specific conditions. And they said they are not prescribing any more medications than before COVID-19. But many of the perennial treatments for anxiety – improving the diet, getting out and exercising, developing a hobby, reaching out to others – can be difficult at the best of times behind bars. Those treatments might be impossible now.

At the juvenile justice system in the Chicago area, for example, the pandemic has forced the cancellation of activities such as writing, taking art classes, and barber training. In-person visits are banned, too. “For a lot of them, seeing their family relieves stress, makes them feel more hopeful. It gives them a sense of normalcy to hug their mom,” said Yana Oskin, MD.

But it’s still possible to urge the young people to read, write, work with puzzles, and exercise daily even if it’s just in their rooms, she said. “While their movements have been limited, they do still get to go outside. If they can’t go to the gym, the recreation specialist comes to their pod.”

And while some psychiatrists and older inmates might not be thrilled to have to adjust to therapy via screen during the pandemic, young people are a different story. Dr. Oskin is working with them via telemedicine, which allowed at least one inmate to gain a kind of victory.

“We have an assistant who sets up Skype visits, and the camera was not angled properly,” she recalled. “She couldn’t figure out. The kid sat down and fixed it in 2 seconds.”

Dr. Hanson is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Lee is the author of “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences and Cures” (Wiley Blackwell, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Simpson is coauthor of “Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom” (Wiley Blackwell, 2012). He has no other disclosures. Dr. Badre and Dr. Oskin reported no disclosures.

Maryland psychiatrist Annette Hanson, MD, hasn’t changed her morning routine much since the coronavirus pandemic began. She still avoids putting on a necklace or earrings, which could be torn away or used as a ligature, and heads to work.

The only difference is that Dr. Hanson wears easy-to-clean scrubs instead of business attire. “That way I can strip down and shower as soon as I get home. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I’m being cautious,” said Dr. Hanson, a forensic psychiatrist who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland and at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

As many of her colleagues shelter in place and work from home with the help of telemedicine, prison psychiatrists such as Dr. Hanson continue to evaluate and treat patients in person – behind bars. That hasn’t changed. But so much else has, from the elimination of family visits to the suspension of many court hearings, leaving already vulnerable inmates in limbo.

“Prisons continue to be a poor place to receive mental health care. The setting is destructive to physical and mental health, and the pandemic has made it worse,” said Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who treats inmates in several states.

Like the inmates they treat, prison psychiatrists are facing unique challenges that test their powers of creativity and resilience. “The most challenging part is to continue care in a system that has essentially been frozen in place,” Dr. Hanson said.

As of June 9, nearly 44,000 inmates in federal and state prisons had tested positive for coronavirus, according to the Associated Press and the Marshall Project. At least 500 people have died. Those numbers do not include inmates and staff members in local jails or juvenile detention centers.

Statistics about COVID-19 in prison staff members are incomplete since only 20 states reported them, and it’s not clear where they contracted the virus. Even so, at least 9,180 cases in staff members were reported, along with 38 deaths, the AP/Marshall Project report.

Using telemedicine is impossible at many jails and prisons, forcing many psychiatrists to protect themselves and their patients as best they can. At the Los Angeles County Jail, which does not use telemedicine, group sessions have been greatly reduced. Instead, psychiatrists are spending more time talking to inmates at the doors to cells or modules, said supervising psychiatrist Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD.

The risk of transmission still exists, he said. “Our health system has a comprehensive testing, monitoring, and isolation system in place now to slow the spread and flatten the curve,” Dr. Simpson said. “However, once COVID enters any correctional facility, preventing it from spreading entirely is difficult or impossible given the nature of the living arrangements.”

In interviews, psychiatrists said inmates are more stressed by the limitations spawned by the pandemic than the risk of infection. Many facilities have banned in-person visits, and telephone calls are an expensive alternative, said Nicolas Badre, MD, who treats inmates at jails in the San Diego region.

“That one lifeline you had is no longer there. The second lifeline is that your public defender will get you a plea deal, but they’ve postponed hearings,” he said. “I’ve seen cases of folks who are more anxious and more depressed because COVID is delaying their case or because they’re unable to speak with their families and friends.”

Restrictions on contact with people on the outside are especially difficult for inmates at risk of psychosis, Dr. Badre said. “You add those two [limitations], and how does that not sound to someone with schizophrenia like the government is out to get you? And when someone asks you to wear a mask, how do you trust them?”

According to Dr. Lee, some patients with severe mental illness are unable to comprehend the risk of the pandemic, and they fail to protect themselves. While she’s begun to rely on telemedicine, “it’s a very blunt instrument. Many of my patients are very sick and less able to interact with a screen. And sometimes you’re exhausted at the end of the day because you’ve been yelling at the screen and trying different ways to gain the attention of individuals who are responding to external stimuli and can’t engage.”

The pandemic has improved conditions in prisons and jails on one front: Many are releasing inmates to lower the risk of spreading infection. And Dr. Badre said, “a lot of people are doing just fine, finding themselves to be completely resilient and finding meaning at this time.”

Other than anxiety, the psychiatrists did not report seeing higher percentages of any specific conditions. And they said they are not prescribing any more medications than before COVID-19. But many of the perennial treatments for anxiety – improving the diet, getting out and exercising, developing a hobby, reaching out to others – can be difficult at the best of times behind bars. Those treatments might be impossible now.

At the juvenile justice system in the Chicago area, for example, the pandemic has forced the cancellation of activities such as writing, taking art classes, and barber training. In-person visits are banned, too. “For a lot of them, seeing their family relieves stress, makes them feel more hopeful. It gives them a sense of normalcy to hug their mom,” said Yana Oskin, MD.

But it’s still possible to urge the young people to read, write, work with puzzles, and exercise daily even if it’s just in their rooms, she said. “While their movements have been limited, they do still get to go outside. If they can’t go to the gym, the recreation specialist comes to their pod.”

And while some psychiatrists and older inmates might not be thrilled to have to adjust to therapy via screen during the pandemic, young people are a different story. Dr. Oskin is working with them via telemedicine, which allowed at least one inmate to gain a kind of victory.

“We have an assistant who sets up Skype visits, and the camera was not angled properly,” she recalled. “She couldn’t figure out. The kid sat down and fixed it in 2 seconds.”

Dr. Hanson is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Lee is the author of “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences and Cures” (Wiley Blackwell, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Simpson is coauthor of “Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom” (Wiley Blackwell, 2012). He has no other disclosures. Dr. Badre and Dr. Oskin reported no disclosures.

Adult female survivors of domestic abuse were at least one-third more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and all-cause mortality over a short follow-up period, although they did not face a higher risk of hypertension, a new British study finds.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, provides more evidence of a link between domestic abuse and poor health, even in younger women.

“The prevalence of domestic abuse is vast, so any increased risk in cardiometabolic disease may translate into a large burden of potentially preventable illness in society,” said study lead author Joht Singh Chandan, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Birmingham (England) and University of Warwick in Coventry, England, in an interview.

The researchers retrospectively tracked primary care patients in the United Kingdom from 1995-2017. They compared 18,547 adult female survivors of domestic abuse with a group of 72,231 other women who were matched to them at baseline by age, body mass index, smoking status, and a measure known as the Townsend deprivation score.

The average age of women in the groups was 37 years plus or minus 13 in the domestic abuse group and 37 years plus or minus 12 in the unexposed group. In both groups, 45% of women smoked; women in the domestic abuse group were more likely to drink excessively (10%), compared with those in the unexposed group (4%).

Researchers followed the women in the domestic abuse group for an average of 2 years and the unexposed group for 3 years. Those in the domestic abuse group were more likely to fall out of the study because they transferred to other medical practices.

Over the study period, 181 women in the domestic abuse group and 644 women in the unexposed group developed cardiovascular disease outcomes (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.55; P = .001). They were also more likely to develop type 2 diabetes (adjusted IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.30-1.76; P less than .001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted IRR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67; P less than.001). But there was no increased risk of hypertension (adjusted IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.12; P = 0.873).

Why might exposure to domestic abuse boost cardiovascular risk? “Although our study was not able to answer exactly why this relationship exists, we believe that it is likely due to the effects of acute and chronic stress caused by [domestic abuse],” Dr. Chandan said. “These can be broadly put into three categories: adoption of poor lifestyle behaviors due to difficult circumstances (physical inactivity, poor diet, disrupted sleep, substance misuse and smoking); associated development of mental ill health; and the alteration of the immune, metabolic, neuroendocrine, and autonomic nervous system due to the impact of stress on the body.”

It’s not clear why the risk of hypertension may be an outlier among cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Chandan said. However, he pointed to a similar study whose results hinted that survivors of emotional abuse may be more susceptible to a negative impact on hypertension (Ann Epidemiol. 2012 Aug;22[8]:562-7). The new study does not provide information about the type of abuse suffered by subjects.

Adrienne O’Neil, PhD, a family violence practitioner and cardiovascular epidemiologist at Deakin University in Geelong, Australia, said in an interview that the study is “a very useful contribution to the literature.” However, she cautioned that the study might have missed cases of domestic abuse because it relies on reports from primary care practitioners.

As for the findings, she said they’re surprising because of the divergence of major cardiovascular outcomes such as ischemic heart disease and stroke in groups of women with an average age of 37. “These differential health outcomes were observed over a 2-3 period. You probably wouldn’t expect to see a divergence in cardiovascular outcomes for 5-10 years in this age group.”

Dr. O’Neil said that, moving forward, the research can be helpful to understanding the rise of cardiovascular disease in women aged 35-54, especially in the United States. “The way we assess an individual’s risk of having a heart attack in the future is largely guided by evidence based on men. For a long time, this has neglected female-specific risk factors like polycystic ovary syndrome and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy but also conditions and exposures to which young women are especially vulnerable like depression, anxiety and [domestic abuse],” she said.

“This research is important as it gives us clues about who may be at elevated risk to help us guide prevention efforts. Equally, there is some evidence that chest pain presentation may be a useful predictor of domestic abuse victimization so there could be multiple lines of further inquiry.”

Dr. Chandan, the other study authors, and Dr. O’Neil reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Chandan JS et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014580.
 

Adult female survivors of domestic abuse were at least one-third more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and all-cause mortality over a short follow-up period, although they did not face a higher risk of hypertension, a new British study finds.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, provides more evidence of a link between domestic abuse and poor health, even in younger women.

“The prevalence of domestic abuse is vast, so any increased risk in cardiometabolic disease may translate into a large burden of potentially preventable illness in society,” said study lead author Joht Singh Chandan, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Birmingham (England) and University of Warwick in Coventry, England, in an interview.

The researchers retrospectively tracked primary care patients in the United Kingdom from 1995-2017. They compared 18,547 adult female survivors of domestic abuse with a group of 72,231 other women who were matched to them at baseline by age, body mass index, smoking status, and a measure known as the Townsend deprivation score.

The average age of women in the groups was 37 years plus or minus 13 in the domestic abuse group and 37 years plus or minus 12 in the unexposed group. In both groups, 45% of women smoked; women in the domestic abuse group were more likely to drink excessively (10%), compared with those in the unexposed group (4%).

Researchers followed the women in the domestic abuse group for an average of 2 years and the unexposed group for 3 years. Those in the domestic abuse group were more likely to fall out of the study because they transferred to other medical practices.

Over the study period, 181 women in the domestic abuse group and 644 women in the unexposed group developed cardiovascular disease outcomes (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.55; P = .001). They were also more likely to develop type 2 diabetes (adjusted IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.30-1.76; P less than .001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted IRR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67; P less than.001). But there was no increased risk of hypertension (adjusted IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.12; P = 0.873).

Why might exposure to domestic abuse boost cardiovascular risk? “Although our study was not able to answer exactly why this relationship exists, we believe that it is likely due to the effects of acute and chronic stress caused by [domestic abuse],” Dr. Chandan said. “These can be broadly put into three categories: adoption of poor lifestyle behaviors due to difficult circumstances (physical inactivity, poor diet, disrupted sleep, substance misuse and smoking); associated development of mental ill health; and the alteration of the immune, metabolic, neuroendocrine, and autonomic nervous system due to the impact of stress on the body.”

It’s not clear why the risk of hypertension may be an outlier among cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Chandan said. However, he pointed to a similar study whose results hinted that survivors of emotional abuse may be more susceptible to a negative impact on hypertension (Ann Epidemiol. 2012 Aug;22[8]:562-7). The new study does not provide information about the type of abuse suffered by subjects.

Adrienne O’Neil, PhD, a family violence practitioner and cardiovascular epidemiologist at Deakin University in Geelong, Australia, said in an interview that the study is “a very useful contribution to the literature.” However, she cautioned that the study might have missed cases of domestic abuse because it relies on reports from primary care practitioners.

As for the findings, she said they’re surprising because of the divergence of major cardiovascular outcomes such as ischemic heart disease and stroke in groups of women with an average age of 37. “These differential health outcomes were observed over a 2-3 period. You probably wouldn’t expect to see a divergence in cardiovascular outcomes for 5-10 years in this age group.”

Dr. O’Neil said that, moving forward, the research can be helpful to understanding the rise of cardiovascular disease in women aged 35-54, especially in the United States. “The way we assess an individual’s risk of having a heart attack in the future is largely guided by evidence based on men. For a long time, this has neglected female-specific risk factors like polycystic ovary syndrome and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy but also conditions and exposures to which young women are especially vulnerable like depression, anxiety and [domestic abuse],” she said.

“This research is important as it gives us clues about who may be at elevated risk to help us guide prevention efforts. Equally, there is some evidence that chest pain presentation may be a useful predictor of domestic abuse victimization so there could be multiple lines of further inquiry.”

Dr. Chandan, the other study authors, and Dr. O’Neil reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Chandan JS et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014580.
 

Adult female survivors of domestic abuse were at least one-third more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and all-cause mortality over a short follow-up period, although they did not face a higher risk of hypertension, a new British study finds.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, provides more evidence of a link between domestic abuse and poor health, even in younger women.

“The prevalence of domestic abuse is vast, so any increased risk in cardiometabolic disease may translate into a large burden of potentially preventable illness in society,” said study lead author Joht Singh Chandan, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Birmingham (England) and University of Warwick in Coventry, England, in an interview.

The researchers retrospectively tracked primary care patients in the United Kingdom from 1995-2017. They compared 18,547 adult female survivors of domestic abuse with a group of 72,231 other women who were matched to them at baseline by age, body mass index, smoking status, and a measure known as the Townsend deprivation score.

The average age of women in the groups was 37 years plus or minus 13 in the domestic abuse group and 37 years plus or minus 12 in the unexposed group. In both groups, 45% of women smoked; women in the domestic abuse group were more likely to drink excessively (10%), compared with those in the unexposed group (4%).

Researchers followed the women in the domestic abuse group for an average of 2 years and the unexposed group for 3 years. Those in the domestic abuse group were more likely to fall out of the study because they transferred to other medical practices.

Over the study period, 181 women in the domestic abuse group and 644 women in the unexposed group developed cardiovascular disease outcomes (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.55; P = .001). They were also more likely to develop type 2 diabetes (adjusted IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.30-1.76; P less than .001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted IRR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67; P less than.001). But there was no increased risk of hypertension (adjusted IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.12; P = 0.873).

Why might exposure to domestic abuse boost cardiovascular risk? “Although our study was not able to answer exactly why this relationship exists, we believe that it is likely due to the effects of acute and chronic stress caused by [domestic abuse],” Dr. Chandan said. “These can be broadly put into three categories: adoption of poor lifestyle behaviors due to difficult circumstances (physical inactivity, poor diet, disrupted sleep, substance misuse and smoking); associated development of mental ill health; and the alteration of the immune, metabolic, neuroendocrine, and autonomic nervous system due to the impact of stress on the body.”

It’s not clear why the risk of hypertension may be an outlier among cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Chandan said. However, he pointed to a similar study whose results hinted that survivors of emotional abuse may be more susceptible to a negative impact on hypertension (Ann Epidemiol. 2012 Aug;22[8]:562-7). The new study does not provide information about the type of abuse suffered by subjects.

Adrienne O’Neil, PhD, a family violence practitioner and cardiovascular epidemiologist at Deakin University in Geelong, Australia, said in an interview that the study is “a very useful contribution to the literature.” However, she cautioned that the study might have missed cases of domestic abuse because it relies on reports from primary care practitioners.

As for the findings, she said they’re surprising because of the divergence of major cardiovascular outcomes such as ischemic heart disease and stroke in groups of women with an average age of 37. “These differential health outcomes were observed over a 2-3 period. You probably wouldn’t expect to see a divergence in cardiovascular outcomes for 5-10 years in this age group.”

Dr. O’Neil said that, moving forward, the research can be helpful to understanding the rise of cardiovascular disease in women aged 35-54, especially in the United States. “The way we assess an individual’s risk of having a heart attack in the future is largely guided by evidence based on men. For a long time, this has neglected female-specific risk factors like polycystic ovary syndrome and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy but also conditions and exposures to which young women are especially vulnerable like depression, anxiety and [domestic abuse],” she said.

“This research is important as it gives us clues about who may be at elevated risk to help us guide prevention efforts. Equally, there is some evidence that chest pain presentation may be a useful predictor of domestic abuse victimization so there could be multiple lines of further inquiry.”

Dr. Chandan, the other study authors, and Dr. O’Neil reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Chandan JS et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014580.
 

An allergist and a pediatric pulmonologist cautioned colleagues that COVID-19 could be spawning hazardous behavior as patients question whether they should continue using immune-suppressing drugs during the pandemic.

“In fact, there’s no data to support this at this time. Maintaining adequate asthma control is the current CDC recommendation,” said pediatric pulmonologist John Carl, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. Patients, he said, should be advised to “follow your asthma action plan as outlined by your primary care or specialty clinician and communicate about evolving symptoms, such as fever rather than just congestion, wheezing, and coughing, etc.”

Dr. Carl spoke in a May 7 webinar about asthma and COVID-19 with Lakiea Wright, M.D., a physician specializing in internal medicine and allergy and immunology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and medical director of clinical affairs for Thermo Fisher Scientific’s ImmunoDiagnostics division. The webinar, sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific, included discussion of COVID-19 risks, disease management, and distinguishing between the virus and asthma.

In a follow-up interview, Dr. Wright said she’s hearing from patients and parents who are concerned about whether people with asthma face a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. There’s no evidence that they do, she said, but “the CDC states that individuals with moderate to severe asthma may be higher risk for moderate to severe disease from COVID-19 if they were to become infected.”

Indeed, she said, “it is well established that viruses can trigger asthma.” But, as she also noted, early research about the risk in patients with asthma is conflicting.

“Some studies suggest asthma may be a risk factor for hospitalization while other data suggests asthma is not a common risk factor for those hospitalized,” Dr. Wright said.

She highlighted a recent study that suggests people with allergic asthma have “a reduced ACE2 gene expression in airway cells and thus decreased susceptibility to infection” by the novel coronavirus (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.009).

Dr. Wright cautioned, however, that “this is a hypothesis and will need to be studied more.”

For now, she said, patients “should follow their asthma action plan and take their inhalers, including inhaled corticosteroids, as prescribed by their health care providers.”

Most patients are reasonable and do comply when their physicians explain why they should take a medication,” she noted.

Dr. Carl agreed, and added that a short course of oral corticosteroids are also recommended to manage minor exacerbations and “prevent patients from having to arrive as inpatients in more acute settings and risk health system–related exposures to the current pandemic.”

He cautioned, however, that metered-dose inhalers are preferable to nebulizers, and side vent ports should be avoided since they can aerosolize infectious agents and put health care providers and family members at risk.

Unfortunately, he said, there’s been a shortage of short-acting beta agonist albuterol inhalers. This has been linked to hospitals trying to avoid the use of nebulizers.

Dr. Wright advised colleagues to focus on unique symptoms first, then address overlapping symptoms and other symptoms to differentiate between COVID-19 and asthma/allergy.

She noted that environmental allergy symptoms alone do not cause fever, a hallmark of COVID-19. Shortness of breath can be a distinguishing symptom for the virus, because this is not a common symptom of environmental allergies unless the patient has asthma, Dr. Wright said.

Cough can be an overlapping symptom because in environmental allergies, postnasal drip from allergic rhinitis can trigger cough, she explained. Nasal congestion and/or runny nose can develop with viral illnesses in general, but these are symptoms not included in the CDC’s list of the most common COVID-19 symptoms. Severe fatigue and body aches aren’t symptoms consistent with environmental allergies, Dr. Wright said.

Both Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright emphasized the importance of continuing routine asthma therapy during the pandemic.

“When discussing the importance of taking their inhaled steroids with patients, I also remind patients that asthma management is comprehensive,” Dr. Wright said. “I want them to take their medications, but I also want them avoid or minimize exposure to triggers. Allergic and nonallergic triggers such as environmental tobacco smoke can exacerbate asthma.”

In addition, she said, “it’s important to take a detailed medical history to identify triggers. And it’s important to conduct allergy testing to common environmental allergens to help identify allergic triggers and tailor environmental allergen control strategies based on the results. All of these strategies help patients keep their asthma well-controlled.”

Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright report having no relevant disclosures.

An allergist and a pediatric pulmonologist cautioned colleagues that COVID-19 could be spawning hazardous behavior as patients question whether they should continue using immune-suppressing drugs during the pandemic.

“In fact, there’s no data to support this at this time. Maintaining adequate asthma control is the current CDC recommendation,” said pediatric pulmonologist John Carl, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. Patients, he said, should be advised to “follow your asthma action plan as outlined by your primary care or specialty clinician and communicate about evolving symptoms, such as fever rather than just congestion, wheezing, and coughing, etc.”

Dr. Carl spoke in a May 7 webinar about asthma and COVID-19 with Lakiea Wright, M.D., a physician specializing in internal medicine and allergy and immunology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and medical director of clinical affairs for Thermo Fisher Scientific’s ImmunoDiagnostics division. The webinar, sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific, included discussion of COVID-19 risks, disease management, and distinguishing between the virus and asthma.

In a follow-up interview, Dr. Wright said she’s hearing from patients and parents who are concerned about whether people with asthma face a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. There’s no evidence that they do, she said, but “the CDC states that individuals with moderate to severe asthma may be higher risk for moderate to severe disease from COVID-19 if they were to become infected.”

Indeed, she said, “it is well established that viruses can trigger asthma.” But, as she also noted, early research about the risk in patients with asthma is conflicting.

“Some studies suggest asthma may be a risk factor for hospitalization while other data suggests asthma is not a common risk factor for those hospitalized,” Dr. Wright said.

She highlighted a recent study that suggests people with allergic asthma have “a reduced ACE2 gene expression in airway cells and thus decreased susceptibility to infection” by the novel coronavirus (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.009).

Dr. Wright cautioned, however, that “this is a hypothesis and will need to be studied more.”

For now, she said, patients “should follow their asthma action plan and take their inhalers, including inhaled corticosteroids, as prescribed by their health care providers.”

Most patients are reasonable and do comply when their physicians explain why they should take a medication,” she noted.

Dr. Carl agreed, and added that a short course of oral corticosteroids are also recommended to manage minor exacerbations and “prevent patients from having to arrive as inpatients in more acute settings and risk health system–related exposures to the current pandemic.”

He cautioned, however, that metered-dose inhalers are preferable to nebulizers, and side vent ports should be avoided since they can aerosolize infectious agents and put health care providers and family members at risk.

Unfortunately, he said, there’s been a shortage of short-acting beta agonist albuterol inhalers. This has been linked to hospitals trying to avoid the use of nebulizers.

Dr. Wright advised colleagues to focus on unique symptoms first, then address overlapping symptoms and other symptoms to differentiate between COVID-19 and asthma/allergy.

She noted that environmental allergy symptoms alone do not cause fever, a hallmark of COVID-19. Shortness of breath can be a distinguishing symptom for the virus, because this is not a common symptom of environmental allergies unless the patient has asthma, Dr. Wright said.

Cough can be an overlapping symptom because in environmental allergies, postnasal drip from allergic rhinitis can trigger cough, she explained. Nasal congestion and/or runny nose can develop with viral illnesses in general, but these are symptoms not included in the CDC’s list of the most common COVID-19 symptoms. Severe fatigue and body aches aren’t symptoms consistent with environmental allergies, Dr. Wright said.

Both Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright emphasized the importance of continuing routine asthma therapy during the pandemic.

“When discussing the importance of taking their inhaled steroids with patients, I also remind patients that asthma management is comprehensive,” Dr. Wright said. “I want them to take their medications, but I also want them avoid or minimize exposure to triggers. Allergic and nonallergic triggers such as environmental tobacco smoke can exacerbate asthma.”

In addition, she said, “it’s important to take a detailed medical history to identify triggers. And it’s important to conduct allergy testing to common environmental allergens to help identify allergic triggers and tailor environmental allergen control strategies based on the results. All of these strategies help patients keep their asthma well-controlled.”

Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright report having no relevant disclosures.

An allergist and a pediatric pulmonologist cautioned colleagues that COVID-19 could be spawning hazardous behavior as patients question whether they should continue using immune-suppressing drugs during the pandemic.

“In fact, there’s no data to support this at this time. Maintaining adequate asthma control is the current CDC recommendation,” said pediatric pulmonologist John Carl, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. Patients, he said, should be advised to “follow your asthma action plan as outlined by your primary care or specialty clinician and communicate about evolving symptoms, such as fever rather than just congestion, wheezing, and coughing, etc.”

Dr. Carl spoke in a May 7 webinar about asthma and COVID-19 with Lakiea Wright, M.D., a physician specializing in internal medicine and allergy and immunology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and medical director of clinical affairs for Thermo Fisher Scientific’s ImmunoDiagnostics division. The webinar, sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific, included discussion of COVID-19 risks, disease management, and distinguishing between the virus and asthma.

In a follow-up interview, Dr. Wright said she’s hearing from patients and parents who are concerned about whether people with asthma face a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. There’s no evidence that they do, she said, but “the CDC states that individuals with moderate to severe asthma may be higher risk for moderate to severe disease from COVID-19 if they were to become infected.”

Indeed, she said, “it is well established that viruses can trigger asthma.” But, as she also noted, early research about the risk in patients with asthma is conflicting.

“Some studies suggest asthma may be a risk factor for hospitalization while other data suggests asthma is not a common risk factor for those hospitalized,” Dr. Wright said.

She highlighted a recent study that suggests people with allergic asthma have “a reduced ACE2 gene expression in airway cells and thus decreased susceptibility to infection” by the novel coronavirus (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.009).

Dr. Wright cautioned, however, that “this is a hypothesis and will need to be studied more.”

For now, she said, patients “should follow their asthma action plan and take their inhalers, including inhaled corticosteroids, as prescribed by their health care providers.”

Most patients are reasonable and do comply when their physicians explain why they should take a medication,” she noted.

Dr. Carl agreed, and added that a short course of oral corticosteroids are also recommended to manage minor exacerbations and “prevent patients from having to arrive as inpatients in more acute settings and risk health system–related exposures to the current pandemic.”

He cautioned, however, that metered-dose inhalers are preferable to nebulizers, and side vent ports should be avoided since they can aerosolize infectious agents and put health care providers and family members at risk.

Unfortunately, he said, there’s been a shortage of short-acting beta agonist albuterol inhalers. This has been linked to hospitals trying to avoid the use of nebulizers.

Dr. Wright advised colleagues to focus on unique symptoms first, then address overlapping symptoms and other symptoms to differentiate between COVID-19 and asthma/allergy.

She noted that environmental allergy symptoms alone do not cause fever, a hallmark of COVID-19. Shortness of breath can be a distinguishing symptom for the virus, because this is not a common symptom of environmental allergies unless the patient has asthma, Dr. Wright said.

Cough can be an overlapping symptom because in environmental allergies, postnasal drip from allergic rhinitis can trigger cough, she explained. Nasal congestion and/or runny nose can develop with viral illnesses in general, but these are symptoms not included in the CDC’s list of the most common COVID-19 symptoms. Severe fatigue and body aches aren’t symptoms consistent with environmental allergies, Dr. Wright said.

Both Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright emphasized the importance of continuing routine asthma therapy during the pandemic.

“When discussing the importance of taking their inhaled steroids with patients, I also remind patients that asthma management is comprehensive,” Dr. Wright said. “I want them to take their medications, but I also want them avoid or minimize exposure to triggers. Allergic and nonallergic triggers such as environmental tobacco smoke can exacerbate asthma.”

In addition, she said, “it’s important to take a detailed medical history to identify triggers. And it’s important to conduct allergy testing to common environmental allergens to help identify allergic triggers and tailor environmental allergen control strategies based on the results. All of these strategies help patients keep their asthma well-controlled.”

Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright report having no relevant disclosures.

Photo-manipulated selfies can provide adolescents an influential window into the wrinkled, sun-damaged future that may be theirs if they’re not careful, a new study suggests.

In the study, researchers found that Brazilian teenagers, especially girls, were more likely to protect themselves from the sun if they got glimpses of how sun exposure could damage their faces. “The intervention used in this study was effective in convincing a substantial part of the students to take up regular sunscreen use and to examine their own skin regularly,” they wrote. “Moreover, these effects were maintained for at least half a year.”

The study, led by Titus J. Brinker, MD, of the department of dermatology, in the National Center for Tumor Diseases, German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, Germany, appeared online on May 6 in JAMA Dermatology (2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0511.

Dr. Brinker and colleagues launched the study in 2018 at eight public schools that serve grades 9-12 in Itaúna, a city in southeast Brazil, randomly assigning 1,573 students (52% girls, 48% boys; mean age, 16 years) to the intervention or control group.

Those in the intervention group attended seminars in which medical students showed them selfies of their classmates altered with a mobile phone app called Sunface, developed by Dr. Brinker. The free app examines photographs of faces and adds wrinkles, spots, precancerous lesions, and other signs of damage to them based on different levels of sun exposure over 5-25 years.

The app, which takes the skin types of the subjects into account, was described by the Vice news site as “terrifying” in a 2018 article. It “could very well scare you into using sunscreen and wearing hats,” the author of that article wrote.

The app appeared to do just that – but not universally, according to the new study.

At 6 months, there was no change in sun protection habits in the control group. But among those remaining in the intervention group, the use of daily sunscreen significantly increased from 15% (110 of 734 students) during the 30 days prior to the survey, to 23% (139 of 607 students) at the 6-month follow-up (P less than .001), as did the percentage of those who performed at least one skin self-examination within the 6 months (25% to 49%; P less than .001). The students were slightly less likely to use tanning beds within the previous month (19% to 15%; P = .04); the researchers speculate that it’s easier to gain a new healthy habit than get rid of an old unhealthy one.

Girls were much more likely to change their habits than boys. The number needed to treat to reach the primary endpoint, daily sunscreen use, was 8 for girls and 31 for boys.

The researchers noted that the dropout rate was higher in the intervention group (17%) vs. the control group (6%). “The intervention may have led to strong adverse reactions in some students, leading to the observed higher dropout rate in the intervention group,” they wrote. Changes to the way the app is used could improve the dropout rate, but potentially hurt the intervention’s impact, they added.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology, two health intervention researchers wrote that “this work represents a needed shift toward scalable interventions that bring messaging to target populations using their preferred technology” (2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0510).

Referring to the finding that sunscreen use did not change much among the boys in the study, the authors, Sherry L. Pagoto, PhD, of the Institute for Collaborations on Health, Interventions, and Policy at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and Alan C. Geller, MPH, RN, of the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, also noted that “teen boys have been largely resistant to traditional and nontraditional forms of sun safety education.”

“Teasing out sex differences is important,” they added, “because sun protection interventions woven into existing programs at pools, beaches, and sporting events might be more appealing and enduring for boys, particularly if the technology they regularly use is leveraged.”

Dr. Brinker disclosed receiving an award from La Fondation la Roche-Posay, which also provided support for the study which partially funded the study, for his research on the Sunface app. The University of Itaúna provided other study funding. Several other study authors had various disclosures. Dr. Pagoto disclosed consulting work and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, unrelated to the topic of the commentary; Dr. Geller had no disclosures.

SOURCES: Brinker TJ et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0511; Pagoto SL and Geller AC. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0510.

Photo-manipulated selfies can provide adolescents an influential window into the wrinkled, sun-damaged future that may be theirs if they’re not careful, a new study suggests.

In the study, researchers found that Brazilian teenagers, especially girls, were more likely to protect themselves from the sun if they got glimpses of how sun exposure could damage their faces. “The intervention used in this study was effective in convincing a substantial part of the students to take up regular sunscreen use and to examine their own skin regularly,” they wrote. “Moreover, these effects were maintained for at least half a year.”

The study, led by Titus J. Brinker, MD, of the department of dermatology, in the National Center for Tumor Diseases, German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, Germany, appeared online on May 6 in JAMA Dermatology (2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0511.

Dr. Brinker and colleagues launched the study in 2018 at eight public schools that serve grades 9-12 in Itaúna, a city in southeast Brazil, randomly assigning 1,573 students (52% girls, 48% boys; mean age, 16 years) to the intervention or control group.

Those in the intervention group attended seminars in which medical students showed them selfies of their classmates altered with a mobile phone app called Sunface, developed by Dr. Brinker. The free app examines photographs of faces and adds wrinkles, spots, precancerous lesions, and other signs of damage to them based on different levels of sun exposure over 5-25 years.

The app, which takes the skin types of the subjects into account, was described by the Vice news site as “terrifying” in a 2018 article. It “could very well scare you into using sunscreen and wearing hats,” the author of that article wrote.

The app appeared to do just that – but not universally, according to the new study.

At 6 months, there was no change in sun protection habits in the control group. But among those remaining in the intervention group, the use of daily sunscreen significantly increased from 15% (110 of 734 students) during the 30 days prior to the survey, to 23% (139 of 607 students) at the 6-month follow-up (P less than .001), as did the percentage of those who performed at least one skin self-examination within the 6 months (25% to 49%; P less than .001). The students were slightly less likely to use tanning beds within the previous month (19% to 15%; P = .04); the researchers speculate that it’s easier to gain a new healthy habit than get rid of an old unhealthy one.

Girls were much more likely to change their habits than boys. The number needed to treat to reach the primary endpoint, daily sunscreen use, was 8 for girls and 31 for boys.

The researchers noted that the dropout rate was higher in the intervention group (17%) vs. the control group (6%). “The intervention may have led to strong adverse reactions in some students, leading to the observed higher dropout rate in the intervention group,” they wrote. Changes to the way the app is used could improve the dropout rate, but potentially hurt the intervention’s impact, they added.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology, two health intervention researchers wrote that “this work represents a needed shift toward scalable interventions that bring messaging to target populations using their preferred technology” (2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0510).

Referring to the finding that sunscreen use did not change much among the boys in the study, the authors, Sherry L. Pagoto, PhD, of the Institute for Collaborations on Health, Interventions, and Policy at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and Alan C. Geller, MPH, RN, of the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, also noted that “teen boys have been largely resistant to traditional and nontraditional forms of sun safety education.”

“Teasing out sex differences is important,” they added, “because sun protection interventions woven into existing programs at pools, beaches, and sporting events might be more appealing and enduring for boys, particularly if the technology they regularly use is leveraged.”

Dr. Brinker disclosed receiving an award from La Fondation la Roche-Posay, which also provided support for the study which partially funded the study, for his research on the Sunface app. The University of Itaúna provided other study funding. Several other study authors had various disclosures. Dr. Pagoto disclosed consulting work and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, unrelated to the topic of the commentary; Dr. Geller had no disclosures.

SOURCES: Brinker TJ et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0511; Pagoto SL and Geller AC. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0510.

Photo-manipulated selfies can provide adolescents an influential window into the wrinkled, sun-damaged future that may be theirs if they’re not careful, a new study suggests.

In the study, researchers found that Brazilian teenagers, especially girls, were more likely to protect themselves from the sun if they got glimpses of how sun exposure could damage their faces. “The intervention used in this study was effective in convincing a substantial part of the students to take up regular sunscreen use and to examine their own skin regularly,” they wrote. “Moreover, these effects were maintained for at least half a year.”

The study, led by Titus J. Brinker, MD, of the department of dermatology, in the National Center for Tumor Diseases, German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, Germany, appeared online on May 6 in JAMA Dermatology (2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0511.

Dr. Brinker and colleagues launched the study in 2018 at eight public schools that serve grades 9-12 in Itaúna, a city in southeast Brazil, randomly assigning 1,573 students (52% girls, 48% boys; mean age, 16 years) to the intervention or control group.

Those in the intervention group attended seminars in which medical students showed them selfies of their classmates altered with a mobile phone app called Sunface, developed by Dr. Brinker. The free app examines photographs of faces and adds wrinkles, spots, precancerous lesions, and other signs of damage to them based on different levels of sun exposure over 5-25 years.

The app, which takes the skin types of the subjects into account, was described by the Vice news site as “terrifying” in a 2018 article. It “could very well scare you into using sunscreen and wearing hats,” the author of that article wrote.

The app appeared to do just that – but not universally, according to the new study.

At 6 months, there was no change in sun protection habits in the control group. But among those remaining in the intervention group, the use of daily sunscreen significantly increased from 15% (110 of 734 students) during the 30 days prior to the survey, to 23% (139 of 607 students) at the 6-month follow-up (P less than .001), as did the percentage of those who performed at least one skin self-examination within the 6 months (25% to 49%; P less than .001). The students were slightly less likely to use tanning beds within the previous month (19% to 15%; P = .04); the researchers speculate that it’s easier to gain a new healthy habit than get rid of an old unhealthy one.

Girls were much more likely to change their habits than boys. The number needed to treat to reach the primary endpoint, daily sunscreen use, was 8 for girls and 31 for boys.

The researchers noted that the dropout rate was higher in the intervention group (17%) vs. the control group (6%). “The intervention may have led to strong adverse reactions in some students, leading to the observed higher dropout rate in the intervention group,” they wrote. Changes to the way the app is used could improve the dropout rate, but potentially hurt the intervention’s impact, they added.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology, two health intervention researchers wrote that “this work represents a needed shift toward scalable interventions that bring messaging to target populations using their preferred technology” (2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0510).

Referring to the finding that sunscreen use did not change much among the boys in the study, the authors, Sherry L. Pagoto, PhD, of the Institute for Collaborations on Health, Interventions, and Policy at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and Alan C. Geller, MPH, RN, of the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, also noted that “teen boys have been largely resistant to traditional and nontraditional forms of sun safety education.”

“Teasing out sex differences is important,” they added, “because sun protection interventions woven into existing programs at pools, beaches, and sporting events might be more appealing and enduring for boys, particularly if the technology they regularly use is leveraged.”

Dr. Brinker disclosed receiving an award from La Fondation la Roche-Posay, which also provided support for the study which partially funded the study, for his research on the Sunface app. The University of Itaúna provided other study funding. Several other study authors had various disclosures. Dr. Pagoto disclosed consulting work and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, unrelated to the topic of the commentary; Dr. Geller had no disclosures.

SOURCES: Brinker TJ et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0511; Pagoto SL and Geller AC. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0510.

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.