Clinical Psychiatry News

Pimavanserin, a novel antipsychotic drug used to manage hallucinations and delusions in Parkinson’s disease, may lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths, according to a new study.

A retrospective cohort study of elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease who were in long-term care facilities found that the use of pimavanserin (Nuplazid) was associated with an increased risk of 30-day hospitalization and mortality for up to a year.

“Given that a previous study showed typical and atypical antipsychotics more than doubled mortality risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease, we aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization and death associated with pimavanserin,” wrote lead author Y. Joseph Hwang, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues in the paper. “These findings, in a large real-world cohort within long-term care facilities, may help to inform decisions regarding its risk-benefit balance among patients with Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online Aug. 13 in Neurology.

The researchers enrolled 2,186 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 65 years and older in Medicare-certified long-term care facilities who also had a pimavanserin prescription and 18,212 nonusers of pimavanserin between Nov. 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients in the pimavanserin group used the drug over the course of the entire study period. Hospitalization and mortality were calculated from the date of pimavanserin prescription. Propensity score–based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the two groups on 24 baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and comorbidities.

Pimavanserin use was associated with a 24% higher risk of 30-day hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.43). However, “the association did not reach statistical significance in a smaller subcohort of propensity score-matched users and nonusers,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote.

Pimavanserin use was also linked to higher mortality at:

• 90 days (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41).
• 180 days (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45).
• 365 days (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.42-1.72).

No associations were found between pimavanserin use and 90-day hospitalization (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.24) nor with 30-day mortality (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03).
 

Important considerations

“This study raises three important points to consider for any practicing neurology provider: 1) how to address and interpret risks associated with pimavanserin use in this patient population 2) utility of pimavanserin 3) interpretation of data showing increased mortality in patients being treated for Parkinson’s disease psychosis,” wrote Farwa Ali, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an accompanying editorial published in Neurology.

Hallucinations and delusions are highly prevalent in Parkinson’s disease; as many as 60% of patients will develop psychosis over the course of their illness. Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist which targets 5-HT_2A serotonin receptors in the brain, decreasing their activity in order to attenuate hallucinations and delusions.

“Pimavanserin has been approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but its safety has been called into question based on previous reports of increased mortality risk, compared with a rather modest benefit seen in a 6-week clinical trial, the duration of which limits determination of long-term safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

Pimavanserin carries a boxed warning that elderly patients with dementia may be at an increased risk of death. After its approval in 2016, the U.S. FDA later reviewed 893 deaths in association with pimavanserin during the postmarketing surveillance period – “an unexpected number in a new drug,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues noted. “It [the FDA] noted that most reports occurred in a population with high underlying death rates and did not signal any additional risk beyond the current warning for all antipsychotics, which could have resulted in annual mortality rates of up to 60%.”

As the first cohort study to examine hospitalization and death between pimavanserin users and nonusers, “the study confirms previous concerns regarding safety of pimavanserin and more importantly brings to attention the importance of carefully considering risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, clear communication with patients and families, and close observation to ensure safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

The study limitations include its observational design, which subjected the findings to residual confounding.

“While we developed models to maximize the strength of causal inference, our comparison group was pimavanserin nonusers and the very reason for prescription of pimavanserin could have predisposed its users to the outcomes of hospitalization and death, introducing confounding by indication,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Additionally, “while robust analyses were conducted to ensure pimavanserin users and nonusers were comparable, Dr. Hwang et al. did find that pimavanserin users were more likely to concomitantly use other antipsychotic drugs which has been demonstrated as increasing the mortality risk,” Dr. Ali pointed out.

Since patients living in long-term care facilities may have a higher risk of mortality because of more severe or later-stage Parkinson’s disease, the study results “may not be generalizable to community-dwelling PD patients,” Dr. Ali wrote. “These factors are important to consider while making individual management decisions.”

Dr. Hwang and Dr. Ali disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study authors reported no targeted funding.

Pimavanserin, a novel antipsychotic drug used to manage hallucinations and delusions in Parkinson’s disease, may lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths, according to a new study.

A retrospective cohort study of elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease who were in long-term care facilities found that the use of pimavanserin (Nuplazid) was associated with an increased risk of 30-day hospitalization and mortality for up to a year.

“Given that a previous study showed typical and atypical antipsychotics more than doubled mortality risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease, we aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization and death associated with pimavanserin,” wrote lead author Y. Joseph Hwang, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues in the paper. “These findings, in a large real-world cohort within long-term care facilities, may help to inform decisions regarding its risk-benefit balance among patients with Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online Aug. 13 in Neurology.

The researchers enrolled 2,186 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 65 years and older in Medicare-certified long-term care facilities who also had a pimavanserin prescription and 18,212 nonusers of pimavanserin between Nov. 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients in the pimavanserin group used the drug over the course of the entire study period. Hospitalization and mortality were calculated from the date of pimavanserin prescription. Propensity score–based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the two groups on 24 baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and comorbidities.

Pimavanserin use was associated with a 24% higher risk of 30-day hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.43). However, “the association did not reach statistical significance in a smaller subcohort of propensity score-matched users and nonusers,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote.

Pimavanserin use was also linked to higher mortality at:

• 90 days (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41).
• 180 days (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45).
• 365 days (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.42-1.72).

No associations were found between pimavanserin use and 90-day hospitalization (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.24) nor with 30-day mortality (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03).
 

Important considerations

“This study raises three important points to consider for any practicing neurology provider: 1) how to address and interpret risks associated with pimavanserin use in this patient population 2) utility of pimavanserin 3) interpretation of data showing increased mortality in patients being treated for Parkinson’s disease psychosis,” wrote Farwa Ali, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an accompanying editorial published in Neurology.

Hallucinations and delusions are highly prevalent in Parkinson’s disease; as many as 60% of patients will develop psychosis over the course of their illness. Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist which targets 5-HT_2A serotonin receptors in the brain, decreasing their activity in order to attenuate hallucinations and delusions.

“Pimavanserin has been approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but its safety has been called into question based on previous reports of increased mortality risk, compared with a rather modest benefit seen in a 6-week clinical trial, the duration of which limits determination of long-term safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

Pimavanserin carries a boxed warning that elderly patients with dementia may be at an increased risk of death. After its approval in 2016, the U.S. FDA later reviewed 893 deaths in association with pimavanserin during the postmarketing surveillance period – “an unexpected number in a new drug,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues noted. “It [the FDA] noted that most reports occurred in a population with high underlying death rates and did not signal any additional risk beyond the current warning for all antipsychotics, which could have resulted in annual mortality rates of up to 60%.”

As the first cohort study to examine hospitalization and death between pimavanserin users and nonusers, “the study confirms previous concerns regarding safety of pimavanserin and more importantly brings to attention the importance of carefully considering risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, clear communication with patients and families, and close observation to ensure safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

The study limitations include its observational design, which subjected the findings to residual confounding.

“While we developed models to maximize the strength of causal inference, our comparison group was pimavanserin nonusers and the very reason for prescription of pimavanserin could have predisposed its users to the outcomes of hospitalization and death, introducing confounding by indication,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Additionally, “while robust analyses were conducted to ensure pimavanserin users and nonusers were comparable, Dr. Hwang et al. did find that pimavanserin users were more likely to concomitantly use other antipsychotic drugs which has been demonstrated as increasing the mortality risk,” Dr. Ali pointed out.

Since patients living in long-term care facilities may have a higher risk of mortality because of more severe or later-stage Parkinson’s disease, the study results “may not be generalizable to community-dwelling PD patients,” Dr. Ali wrote. “These factors are important to consider while making individual management decisions.”

Dr. Hwang and Dr. Ali disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study authors reported no targeted funding.

Pimavanserin, a novel antipsychotic drug used to manage hallucinations and delusions in Parkinson’s disease, may lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths, according to a new study.

A retrospective cohort study of elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease who were in long-term care facilities found that the use of pimavanserin (Nuplazid) was associated with an increased risk of 30-day hospitalization and mortality for up to a year.

“Given that a previous study showed typical and atypical antipsychotics more than doubled mortality risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease, we aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization and death associated with pimavanserin,” wrote lead author Y. Joseph Hwang, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues in the paper. “These findings, in a large real-world cohort within long-term care facilities, may help to inform decisions regarding its risk-benefit balance among patients with Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online Aug. 13 in Neurology.

The researchers enrolled 2,186 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 65 years and older in Medicare-certified long-term care facilities who also had a pimavanserin prescription and 18,212 nonusers of pimavanserin between Nov. 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients in the pimavanserin group used the drug over the course of the entire study period. Hospitalization and mortality were calculated from the date of pimavanserin prescription. Propensity score–based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the two groups on 24 baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and comorbidities.

Pimavanserin use was associated with a 24% higher risk of 30-day hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.43). However, “the association did not reach statistical significance in a smaller subcohort of propensity score-matched users and nonusers,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote.

Pimavanserin use was also linked to higher mortality at:

• 90 days (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41).
• 180 days (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45).
• 365 days (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.42-1.72).

No associations were found between pimavanserin use and 90-day hospitalization (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.24) nor with 30-day mortality (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03).
 

Important considerations

“This study raises three important points to consider for any practicing neurology provider: 1) how to address and interpret risks associated with pimavanserin use in this patient population 2) utility of pimavanserin 3) interpretation of data showing increased mortality in patients being treated for Parkinson’s disease psychosis,” wrote Farwa Ali, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an accompanying editorial published in Neurology.

Hallucinations and delusions are highly prevalent in Parkinson’s disease; as many as 60% of patients will develop psychosis over the course of their illness. Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist which targets 5-HT_2A serotonin receptors in the brain, decreasing their activity in order to attenuate hallucinations and delusions.

“Pimavanserin has been approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but its safety has been called into question based on previous reports of increased mortality risk, compared with a rather modest benefit seen in a 6-week clinical trial, the duration of which limits determination of long-term safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

Pimavanserin carries a boxed warning that elderly patients with dementia may be at an increased risk of death. After its approval in 2016, the U.S. FDA later reviewed 893 deaths in association with pimavanserin during the postmarketing surveillance period – “an unexpected number in a new drug,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues noted. “It [the FDA] noted that most reports occurred in a population with high underlying death rates and did not signal any additional risk beyond the current warning for all antipsychotics, which could have resulted in annual mortality rates of up to 60%.”

As the first cohort study to examine hospitalization and death between pimavanserin users and nonusers, “the study confirms previous concerns regarding safety of pimavanserin and more importantly brings to attention the importance of carefully considering risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, clear communication with patients and families, and close observation to ensure safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

The study limitations include its observational design, which subjected the findings to residual confounding.

“While we developed models to maximize the strength of causal inference, our comparison group was pimavanserin nonusers and the very reason for prescription of pimavanserin could have predisposed its users to the outcomes of hospitalization and death, introducing confounding by indication,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Additionally, “while robust analyses were conducted to ensure pimavanserin users and nonusers were comparable, Dr. Hwang et al. did find that pimavanserin users were more likely to concomitantly use other antipsychotic drugs which has been demonstrated as increasing the mortality risk,” Dr. Ali pointed out.

Since patients living in long-term care facilities may have a higher risk of mortality because of more severe or later-stage Parkinson’s disease, the study results “may not be generalizable to community-dwelling PD patients,” Dr. Ali wrote. “These factors are important to consider while making individual management decisions.”

Dr. Hwang and Dr. Ali disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study authors reported no targeted funding.

Following the White House administration’s announcement to start booster COVID-19 vaccinations for American adults in September, experts weighed in on the evidence for choosing an 8-month cutoff, how breakthrough infections figure in, and why calling one mRNA vaccine better than the other could be misleading.

Timing came up more than once at the Aug. 18 White House briefing announcing the booster plans. Reporters asked about the start time of Sept. 20 and people waiting at least 8 months after their second mRNA vaccine dose to get a booster.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained that late September gives the United States time to set up the logistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, added that 8 months is in part based on data from Israel and other countries on the waning of vaccine effectiveness over time.

“It is possible that 8 [months] is associated with the amount of time that we’ve been able to follow large groups of people, especially those who are 65 and older,” Julie Swann, PhD, said during a subsequent media briefing sponsored by Newswise on Aug. 18. “I know that Pfizer has said that they think a booster sometime between 6 and 12 months would be reasonable.”

Dr. Swann supported the administration’s booster shots plan. She said it is important “that we continue to get people the full amount of protection if it’s recommended by CDC and ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] that would come from a booster shot.” Dr. Swann is department head and A. Doug Allison Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
 

Rising importance of breakthrough cases

Also on Aug. 18, news emerged that breakthrough cases are on the rise in seven U.S. states, likely because of the Delta variant.

These SARS-CoV-2 infections among the fully vaccinated account for 20% of cases in six of the seven states cited in a New York Times report, for example. Researchers also suggested that hospitalization and deaths associated with breakthrough cases could be higher than previously appreciated.

“It is expected that over time we will see more cases of Delta variant infections among vaccinated people. This points toward the need for booster vaccines and/or eventual modifications to the vaccine to capture new variants in the future,” Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of general internal medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said during the briefing.
 

Vaccine comparisons unfair?

Following the release of a Mayo Clinic study reporting lower effectiveness of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine at 42% versus 76% for the Moderna product, some people started asking if one vaccine was better than the other.

“To begin with, the vaccines are not being compared side-by-side,” Dr. Wisnivesky said. “So we only know the effectiveness of each vaccine versus placebo, but we don’t know one versus the other.”

He added that different study designs, different populations, and other factors make direct comparisons difficult.

More evidence will be needed, Dr. Wisnivesky said, before public health officials can recommend that someone who received one mRNA vaccine switch to another for their booster shot.
 

Layering protections

Continuing to recommend masks is essential, Dr. Swann added. “With this Delta variant, it does appear that the possibility of reinfection or of a disease case breaking through vaccination can occur. So that makes it even more important to consider using nonpharmaceutical interventions while we continue to vaccinate people.”

Wearing or not wearing a mask is one of the behaviors that drive the transmission of disease, Dr. Swann said.

“What we saw across the board is that many people really wanted to go back to normal as much as they could. And we went back to normal a little bit too soon, especially given this new version of the virus that was circulating,” she said.
 

In poll, most favor boosters

A recent poll conducted by Medscape indicates that a majority of vaccinated physicians and nurses are ready and willing to take a COVID-19 booster vaccine. For example, 93% of 943 doctors and 87% of 1,680 nurses who responded want booster shots, either immediately or when they are authorized and recommended.

Among 510 WebMD readers responding to a similar poll, 82% indicated they wanted a booster shot.
 

A challenging task lies ahead

According to CDC data, as of Aug. 18, 2021, almost 169 million Americans are fully vaccinated, including the one-shot Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine.

“I think it will be a challenge to get everyone who is fully vaccinated to come in for that booster,” Dr. Swann said.

Logistically speaking, Dr. Swann explained that many sites that were open for initial vaccinations, including drive-up locations and 24/7 vaccination sites, are no longer operating.

“We might see that rollout look a little bit differently. You might be able to go to your pharmacy or go to your primary care physician,” she said.

“But we may not see as many weekend events so it is going to be easier to get some people a booster than others.

“One interesting thing will also be whether a booster is effective in actually preventing you from giving a disease to someone else,” Dr. Swann said. “That could make a difference as well, because that might play into whether companies, hospitals, universities, or others require a booster.”

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

Following the White House administration’s announcement to start booster COVID-19 vaccinations for American adults in September, experts weighed in on the evidence for choosing an 8-month cutoff, how breakthrough infections figure in, and why calling one mRNA vaccine better than the other could be misleading.

Timing came up more than once at the Aug. 18 White House briefing announcing the booster plans. Reporters asked about the start time of Sept. 20 and people waiting at least 8 months after their second mRNA vaccine dose to get a booster.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained that late September gives the United States time to set up the logistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, added that 8 months is in part based on data from Israel and other countries on the waning of vaccine effectiveness over time.

“It is possible that 8 [months] is associated with the amount of time that we’ve been able to follow large groups of people, especially those who are 65 and older,” Julie Swann, PhD, said during a subsequent media briefing sponsored by Newswise on Aug. 18. “I know that Pfizer has said that they think a booster sometime between 6 and 12 months would be reasonable.”

Dr. Swann supported the administration’s booster shots plan. She said it is important “that we continue to get people the full amount of protection if it’s recommended by CDC and ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] that would come from a booster shot.” Dr. Swann is department head and A. Doug Allison Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
 

Rising importance of breakthrough cases

Also on Aug. 18, news emerged that breakthrough cases are on the rise in seven U.S. states, likely because of the Delta variant.

These SARS-CoV-2 infections among the fully vaccinated account for 20% of cases in six of the seven states cited in a New York Times report, for example. Researchers also suggested that hospitalization and deaths associated with breakthrough cases could be higher than previously appreciated.

“It is expected that over time we will see more cases of Delta variant infections among vaccinated people. This points toward the need for booster vaccines and/or eventual modifications to the vaccine to capture new variants in the future,” Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of general internal medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said during the briefing.
 

Vaccine comparisons unfair?

Following the release of a Mayo Clinic study reporting lower effectiveness of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine at 42% versus 76% for the Moderna product, some people started asking if one vaccine was better than the other.

“To begin with, the vaccines are not being compared side-by-side,” Dr. Wisnivesky said. “So we only know the effectiveness of each vaccine versus placebo, but we don’t know one versus the other.”

He added that different study designs, different populations, and other factors make direct comparisons difficult.

More evidence will be needed, Dr. Wisnivesky said, before public health officials can recommend that someone who received one mRNA vaccine switch to another for their booster shot.
 

Layering protections

Continuing to recommend masks is essential, Dr. Swann added. “With this Delta variant, it does appear that the possibility of reinfection or of a disease case breaking through vaccination can occur. So that makes it even more important to consider using nonpharmaceutical interventions while we continue to vaccinate people.”

Wearing or not wearing a mask is one of the behaviors that drive the transmission of disease, Dr. Swann said.

“What we saw across the board is that many people really wanted to go back to normal as much as they could. And we went back to normal a little bit too soon, especially given this new version of the virus that was circulating,” she said.
 

In poll, most favor boosters

A recent poll conducted by Medscape indicates that a majority of vaccinated physicians and nurses are ready and willing to take a COVID-19 booster vaccine. For example, 93% of 943 doctors and 87% of 1,680 nurses who responded want booster shots, either immediately or when they are authorized and recommended.

Among 510 WebMD readers responding to a similar poll, 82% indicated they wanted a booster shot.
 

A challenging task lies ahead

According to CDC data, as of Aug. 18, 2021, almost 169 million Americans are fully vaccinated, including the one-shot Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine.

“I think it will be a challenge to get everyone who is fully vaccinated to come in for that booster,” Dr. Swann said.

Logistically speaking, Dr. Swann explained that many sites that were open for initial vaccinations, including drive-up locations and 24/7 vaccination sites, are no longer operating.

“We might see that rollout look a little bit differently. You might be able to go to your pharmacy or go to your primary care physician,” she said.

“But we may not see as many weekend events so it is going to be easier to get some people a booster than others.

“One interesting thing will also be whether a booster is effective in actually preventing you from giving a disease to someone else,” Dr. Swann said. “That could make a difference as well, because that might play into whether companies, hospitals, universities, or others require a booster.”

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

Following the White House administration’s announcement to start booster COVID-19 vaccinations for American adults in September, experts weighed in on the evidence for choosing an 8-month cutoff, how breakthrough infections figure in, and why calling one mRNA vaccine better than the other could be misleading.

Timing came up more than once at the Aug. 18 White House briefing announcing the booster plans. Reporters asked about the start time of Sept. 20 and people waiting at least 8 months after their second mRNA vaccine dose to get a booster.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained that late September gives the United States time to set up the logistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, added that 8 months is in part based on data from Israel and other countries on the waning of vaccine effectiveness over time.

“It is possible that 8 [months] is associated with the amount of time that we’ve been able to follow large groups of people, especially those who are 65 and older,” Julie Swann, PhD, said during a subsequent media briefing sponsored by Newswise on Aug. 18. “I know that Pfizer has said that they think a booster sometime between 6 and 12 months would be reasonable.”

Dr. Swann supported the administration’s booster shots plan. She said it is important “that we continue to get people the full amount of protection if it’s recommended by CDC and ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] that would come from a booster shot.” Dr. Swann is department head and A. Doug Allison Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
 

Rising importance of breakthrough cases

Also on Aug. 18, news emerged that breakthrough cases are on the rise in seven U.S. states, likely because of the Delta variant.

These SARS-CoV-2 infections among the fully vaccinated account for 20% of cases in six of the seven states cited in a New York Times report, for example. Researchers also suggested that hospitalization and deaths associated with breakthrough cases could be higher than previously appreciated.

“It is expected that over time we will see more cases of Delta variant infections among vaccinated people. This points toward the need for booster vaccines and/or eventual modifications to the vaccine to capture new variants in the future,” Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of general internal medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said during the briefing.
 

Vaccine comparisons unfair?

Following the release of a Mayo Clinic study reporting lower effectiveness of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine at 42% versus 76% for the Moderna product, some people started asking if one vaccine was better than the other.

“To begin with, the vaccines are not being compared side-by-side,” Dr. Wisnivesky said. “So we only know the effectiveness of each vaccine versus placebo, but we don’t know one versus the other.”

He added that different study designs, different populations, and other factors make direct comparisons difficult.

More evidence will be needed, Dr. Wisnivesky said, before public health officials can recommend that someone who received one mRNA vaccine switch to another for their booster shot.
 

Layering protections

Continuing to recommend masks is essential, Dr. Swann added. “With this Delta variant, it does appear that the possibility of reinfection or of a disease case breaking through vaccination can occur. So that makes it even more important to consider using nonpharmaceutical interventions while we continue to vaccinate people.”

Wearing or not wearing a mask is one of the behaviors that drive the transmission of disease, Dr. Swann said.

“What we saw across the board is that many people really wanted to go back to normal as much as they could. And we went back to normal a little bit too soon, especially given this new version of the virus that was circulating,” she said.
 

In poll, most favor boosters

A recent poll conducted by Medscape indicates that a majority of vaccinated physicians and nurses are ready and willing to take a COVID-19 booster vaccine. For example, 93% of 943 doctors and 87% of 1,680 nurses who responded want booster shots, either immediately or when they are authorized and recommended.

Among 510 WebMD readers responding to a similar poll, 82% indicated they wanted a booster shot.
 

A challenging task lies ahead

According to CDC data, as of Aug. 18, 2021, almost 169 million Americans are fully vaccinated, including the one-shot Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine.

“I think it will be a challenge to get everyone who is fully vaccinated to come in for that booster,” Dr. Swann said.

Logistically speaking, Dr. Swann explained that many sites that were open for initial vaccinations, including drive-up locations and 24/7 vaccination sites, are no longer operating.

“We might see that rollout look a little bit differently. You might be able to go to your pharmacy or go to your primary care physician,” she said.

“But we may not see as many weekend events so it is going to be easier to get some people a booster than others.

“One interesting thing will also be whether a booster is effective in actually preventing you from giving a disease to someone else,” Dr. Swann said. “That could make a difference as well, because that might play into whether companies, hospitals, universities, or others require a booster.”

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

Drink to your health?

Whether you drink or not, most of us can agree that liquor is not the first thing that comes to mind when looking to make health improvements. But researchers have found a small exception in something traditional.

Xvision/Moment

We’ve added buckwheat to pancakes, bread, and other baked goodies we made during the height of quarantine, but it’s also used to create a traditional liquor in some East Asian countries, where it is used medicinally.

Investigators have found that extracts in the Tartary buckwheat used to make the liquor induce autophagy, a process cells go through to remove proteins that are damaged or not needed anymore – sort of like a cellular spring cleaning.

To test this, the researchers treated liver and skin cells with Tartary buckwheat extract and looked to see how the cells responded with fluorescent markers. The results were clear.

“Treating cells with the extract stimulated the formation of autophagosomes, specialized cellular structures that carry out autophagy, and altered the location of proteins involved in regulating autophagy,” said senior author Takeshi Noda of Osaka (Japan) University.

Looking deeper, the researchers found that quercetin, a component of the buckwheat extract, had the same autophagic effect. And both the buckwheat and the quercetin gave the green light for liver cells to induce aggrephagy, the process of cleaning up protein aggregates.

Those protein aggregates in liver cells are closely linked to alcoholic liver disease, suggesting that quercetin could be a game changer in its treatment. In other words, liquor could help fix the problem that liquor started. Go figure.
 

From hospital bills to X-rated

Ralph Puglisi was an accounting manager for the University Medical Service Association (UMSA), a nonprofit that supports the massive University of South Florida health system. The association took in over $300 million in revenue in the 2019-2020 fiscal year, which is a rather large sum of money, but we’ll glide over the ethics of a “nonprofit” making a few hundred million for now.

wakila/Getty Images

Mr. Puglisi was in very close proximity to the money, generated from patient care, and he pled guilty to stealing it using UMSA credit cards. Now, that wouldn’t be LOTME worthy on its own, but what elevates this above garden-variety embezzlement is how the intrepid Mr. Puglisi chose to spend the millions he stole from the university health system: Adult entertainment.

And before you ask, he didn’t spend $11.5 million on something most people so inclined can find for free with judicious Google searches. What Mr. Puglisi actually did was invest in a website providing adult content through individual user profiles, one of which is believed to belong to his stepson’s fiancée, which brings a whole new level of sleaze to this enterprise. Over the course of 2 years, he visited her profile 2,800 times, an amount some might view as excessive.

While the vast majority of the embezzled money went to the adult website, Mr. Puglisi also used thousands of UMSA dollars to pay for travel, household improvements, rent, the works. Almost $44,000 was spent at a resort sometimes known as the happiest place on earth.

Then there’s Mr. Puglisi’s wife. Oh yes, this guy is married. He poured over $600,000 into a company he and his wife owned, which is a lot, but how much do you think went to the woman he married? Probably quite a bit. Go ahead, try to think of a number. It’s not like it was his money.

Did you guess $100 went into his wife’s PayPal account? No? Clearly you don’t understand the criminal mind. His stepson’s fiancée got millions, and his wife got a hundred. Now there are some priorities.
 

Step 1: Sit at desk. Step 2: Get in shape

Being a physician is not really a desk job, but doctors must spend a fair share of their time sitting, yes? Dealing with recalcitrant EHRs or talking on the phone to insurers or PBMs? If you are one of these physicians, or if you have patients who spend a lot of time sitting at their desks and might need to get a bit of exercise, then we’ve got a multitasking tip for you.

Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

It came to us via one of our favorite websites, Sad and Useless. It’s the site that declares itself “the most depressive humor site on the Internet” and they’re offering up the “12 Best Exercises To Do At Your Desk.” It may not sound like much, but we think that the gang at Dunder-Mifflin would approve. And besides, who couldn’t stand to burn a few calories without having to leave the chair?

We won’t spoil your fun by going through all 12 – each one comes with step-by-step instructions and a helpful illustration or GIF – but here are just a few:

• Bending over backwards: “Agree to do something you don’t want to do. Spend twice as long as expected doing that thing. Hate yourself.”
• Fake laughter: “Hear a joke that isn’t even remotely funny. Open your mouth and make laughing sounds.”
• Bang your head: Feel the “pointlessness of your job overwhelm you” and then “bring your head forcefully down to your desk.”

Now, we here at LOTME are, of course [Bang!], highly skilled, professional wordsmithing humorists [Bang!], so when we tell you that this is a great workout [Bang!] … that this is a great workout [Bang!] … it’s great … uggh.

Wooooo. Feel the burn.
 

One order of mosquitoes, extra Crispr

What would it be like to have a barbecue in your backyard on a humid summer night and not get eaten alive by mosquitoes? If you’re like us, you probably thought you’d never see that day.

©TacioPhilip/Thinkstock

Mosquitoes cause itchy bites, but, more importantly, they can carry dengue, malaria, yellow fever, and Zika virus. New research shows that protection from these diseases may be possible with use of the Crispr-Cas9 gene-editing tool, which could make humans invisible to mosquitoes by taking away their light-sensing abilities and, thus, their ability to find us.

“The better we understand how they sense the human, the better we can control the mosquito in an eco-friendly manner,” Yinpeng Zhan, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the study’s lead author, told the New York Times.

After studying the mosquitoes and figuring out their hunting patterns, the researchers found that mosquitoes are attracted to dark spots more than white spots and used this to their advantage. After knocking out two of the proteins that mosquitoes need for vision – via Crispr – the little suckers could not distinguish the difference between the white and dark spots.

We’re sure mosquitoes don’t mean any harm – they’re just trying to survive and reproduce like any other species – but thanks to this new tool, gone might be the days of having to douse yourself in bug spray that smells like a mix of chemicals and melon.

Drink to your health?

Whether you drink or not, most of us can agree that liquor is not the first thing that comes to mind when looking to make health improvements. But researchers have found a small exception in something traditional.

Xvision/Moment

We’ve added buckwheat to pancakes, bread, and other baked goodies we made during the height of quarantine, but it’s also used to create a traditional liquor in some East Asian countries, where it is used medicinally.

Investigators have found that extracts in the Tartary buckwheat used to make the liquor induce autophagy, a process cells go through to remove proteins that are damaged or not needed anymore – sort of like a cellular spring cleaning.

To test this, the researchers treated liver and skin cells with Tartary buckwheat extract and looked to see how the cells responded with fluorescent markers. The results were clear.

“Treating cells with the extract stimulated the formation of autophagosomes, specialized cellular structures that carry out autophagy, and altered the location of proteins involved in regulating autophagy,” said senior author Takeshi Noda of Osaka (Japan) University.

Looking deeper, the researchers found that quercetin, a component of the buckwheat extract, had the same autophagic effect. And both the buckwheat and the quercetin gave the green light for liver cells to induce aggrephagy, the process of cleaning up protein aggregates.

Those protein aggregates in liver cells are closely linked to alcoholic liver disease, suggesting that quercetin could be a game changer in its treatment. In other words, liquor could help fix the problem that liquor started. Go figure.
 

From hospital bills to X-rated

Ralph Puglisi was an accounting manager for the University Medical Service Association (UMSA), a nonprofit that supports the massive University of South Florida health system. The association took in over $300 million in revenue in the 2019-2020 fiscal year, which is a rather large sum of money, but we’ll glide over the ethics of a “nonprofit” making a few hundred million for now.

wakila/Getty Images

Mr. Puglisi was in very close proximity to the money, generated from patient care, and he pled guilty to stealing it using UMSA credit cards. Now, that wouldn’t be LOTME worthy on its own, but what elevates this above garden-variety embezzlement is how the intrepid Mr. Puglisi chose to spend the millions he stole from the university health system: Adult entertainment.

And before you ask, he didn’t spend $11.5 million on something most people so inclined can find for free with judicious Google searches. What Mr. Puglisi actually did was invest in a website providing adult content through individual user profiles, one of which is believed to belong to his stepson’s fiancée, which brings a whole new level of sleaze to this enterprise. Over the course of 2 years, he visited her profile 2,800 times, an amount some might view as excessive.

While the vast majority of the embezzled money went to the adult website, Mr. Puglisi also used thousands of UMSA dollars to pay for travel, household improvements, rent, the works. Almost $44,000 was spent at a resort sometimes known as the happiest place on earth.

Then there’s Mr. Puglisi’s wife. Oh yes, this guy is married. He poured over $600,000 into a company he and his wife owned, which is a lot, but how much do you think went to the woman he married? Probably quite a bit. Go ahead, try to think of a number. It’s not like it was his money.

Did you guess $100 went into his wife’s PayPal account? No? Clearly you don’t understand the criminal mind. His stepson’s fiancée got millions, and his wife got a hundred. Now there are some priorities.
 

Step 1: Sit at desk. Step 2: Get in shape

Being a physician is not really a desk job, but doctors must spend a fair share of their time sitting, yes? Dealing with recalcitrant EHRs or talking on the phone to insurers or PBMs? If you are one of these physicians, or if you have patients who spend a lot of time sitting at their desks and might need to get a bit of exercise, then we’ve got a multitasking tip for you.

Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

It came to us via one of our favorite websites, Sad and Useless. It’s the site that declares itself “the most depressive humor site on the Internet” and they’re offering up the “12 Best Exercises To Do At Your Desk.” It may not sound like much, but we think that the gang at Dunder-Mifflin would approve. And besides, who couldn’t stand to burn a few calories without having to leave the chair?

We won’t spoil your fun by going through all 12 – each one comes with step-by-step instructions and a helpful illustration or GIF – but here are just a few:

• Bending over backwards: “Agree to do something you don’t want to do. Spend twice as long as expected doing that thing. Hate yourself.”
• Fake laughter: “Hear a joke that isn’t even remotely funny. Open your mouth and make laughing sounds.”
• Bang your head: Feel the “pointlessness of your job overwhelm you” and then “bring your head forcefully down to your desk.”

Now, we here at LOTME are, of course [Bang!], highly skilled, professional wordsmithing humorists [Bang!], so when we tell you that this is a great workout [Bang!] … that this is a great workout [Bang!] … it’s great … uggh.

Wooooo. Feel the burn.
 

One order of mosquitoes, extra Crispr

What would it be like to have a barbecue in your backyard on a humid summer night and not get eaten alive by mosquitoes? If you’re like us, you probably thought you’d never see that day.

©TacioPhilip/Thinkstock

Mosquitoes cause itchy bites, but, more importantly, they can carry dengue, malaria, yellow fever, and Zika virus. New research shows that protection from these diseases may be possible with use of the Crispr-Cas9 gene-editing tool, which could make humans invisible to mosquitoes by taking away their light-sensing abilities and, thus, their ability to find us.

“The better we understand how they sense the human, the better we can control the mosquito in an eco-friendly manner,” Yinpeng Zhan, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the study’s lead author, told the New York Times.

After studying the mosquitoes and figuring out their hunting patterns, the researchers found that mosquitoes are attracted to dark spots more than white spots and used this to their advantage. After knocking out two of the proteins that mosquitoes need for vision – via Crispr – the little suckers could not distinguish the difference between the white and dark spots.

We’re sure mosquitoes don’t mean any harm – they’re just trying to survive and reproduce like any other species – but thanks to this new tool, gone might be the days of having to douse yourself in bug spray that smells like a mix of chemicals and melon.

Drink to your health?

Whether you drink or not, most of us can agree that liquor is not the first thing that comes to mind when looking to make health improvements. But researchers have found a small exception in something traditional.

Xvision/Moment

We’ve added buckwheat to pancakes, bread, and other baked goodies we made during the height of quarantine, but it’s also used to create a traditional liquor in some East Asian countries, where it is used medicinally.

Investigators have found that extracts in the Tartary buckwheat used to make the liquor induce autophagy, a process cells go through to remove proteins that are damaged or not needed anymore – sort of like a cellular spring cleaning.

To test this, the researchers treated liver and skin cells with Tartary buckwheat extract and looked to see how the cells responded with fluorescent markers. The results were clear.

“Treating cells with the extract stimulated the formation of autophagosomes, specialized cellular structures that carry out autophagy, and altered the location of proteins involved in regulating autophagy,” said senior author Takeshi Noda of Osaka (Japan) University.

Looking deeper, the researchers found that quercetin, a component of the buckwheat extract, had the same autophagic effect. And both the buckwheat and the quercetin gave the green light for liver cells to induce aggrephagy, the process of cleaning up protein aggregates.

Those protein aggregates in liver cells are closely linked to alcoholic liver disease, suggesting that quercetin could be a game changer in its treatment. In other words, liquor could help fix the problem that liquor started. Go figure.
 

From hospital bills to X-rated

Ralph Puglisi was an accounting manager for the University Medical Service Association (UMSA), a nonprofit that supports the massive University of South Florida health system. The association took in over $300 million in revenue in the 2019-2020 fiscal year, which is a rather large sum of money, but we’ll glide over the ethics of a “nonprofit” making a few hundred million for now.

wakila/Getty Images

Mr. Puglisi was in very close proximity to the money, generated from patient care, and he pled guilty to stealing it using UMSA credit cards. Now, that wouldn’t be LOTME worthy on its own, but what elevates this above garden-variety embezzlement is how the intrepid Mr. Puglisi chose to spend the millions he stole from the university health system: Adult entertainment.

And before you ask, he didn’t spend $11.5 million on something most people so inclined can find for free with judicious Google searches. What Mr. Puglisi actually did was invest in a website providing adult content through individual user profiles, one of which is believed to belong to his stepson’s fiancée, which brings a whole new level of sleaze to this enterprise. Over the course of 2 years, he visited her profile 2,800 times, an amount some might view as excessive.

While the vast majority of the embezzled money went to the adult website, Mr. Puglisi also used thousands of UMSA dollars to pay for travel, household improvements, rent, the works. Almost $44,000 was spent at a resort sometimes known as the happiest place on earth.

Then there’s Mr. Puglisi’s wife. Oh yes, this guy is married. He poured over $600,000 into a company he and his wife owned, which is a lot, but how much do you think went to the woman he married? Probably quite a bit. Go ahead, try to think of a number. It’s not like it was his money.

Did you guess $100 went into his wife’s PayPal account? No? Clearly you don’t understand the criminal mind. His stepson’s fiancée got millions, and his wife got a hundred. Now there are some priorities.
 

Step 1: Sit at desk. Step 2: Get in shape

Being a physician is not really a desk job, but doctors must spend a fair share of their time sitting, yes? Dealing with recalcitrant EHRs or talking on the phone to insurers or PBMs? If you are one of these physicians, or if you have patients who spend a lot of time sitting at their desks and might need to get a bit of exercise, then we’ve got a multitasking tip for you.

Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

It came to us via one of our favorite websites, Sad and Useless. It’s the site that declares itself “the most depressive humor site on the Internet” and they’re offering up the “12 Best Exercises To Do At Your Desk.” It may not sound like much, but we think that the gang at Dunder-Mifflin would approve. And besides, who couldn’t stand to burn a few calories without having to leave the chair?

We won’t spoil your fun by going through all 12 – each one comes with step-by-step instructions and a helpful illustration or GIF – but here are just a few:

• Bending over backwards: “Agree to do something you don’t want to do. Spend twice as long as expected doing that thing. Hate yourself.”
• Fake laughter: “Hear a joke that isn’t even remotely funny. Open your mouth and make laughing sounds.”
• Bang your head: Feel the “pointlessness of your job overwhelm you” and then “bring your head forcefully down to your desk.”

Now, we here at LOTME are, of course [Bang!], highly skilled, professional wordsmithing humorists [Bang!], so when we tell you that this is a great workout [Bang!] … that this is a great workout [Bang!] … it’s great … uggh.

Wooooo. Feel the burn.
 

One order of mosquitoes, extra Crispr

What would it be like to have a barbecue in your backyard on a humid summer night and not get eaten alive by mosquitoes? If you’re like us, you probably thought you’d never see that day.

©TacioPhilip/Thinkstock

Mosquitoes cause itchy bites, but, more importantly, they can carry dengue, malaria, yellow fever, and Zika virus. New research shows that protection from these diseases may be possible with use of the Crispr-Cas9 gene-editing tool, which could make humans invisible to mosquitoes by taking away their light-sensing abilities and, thus, their ability to find us.

“The better we understand how they sense the human, the better we can control the mosquito in an eco-friendly manner,” Yinpeng Zhan, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the study’s lead author, told the New York Times.

After studying the mosquitoes and figuring out their hunting patterns, the researchers found that mosquitoes are attracted to dark spots more than white spots and used this to their advantage. After knocking out two of the proteins that mosquitoes need for vision – via Crispr – the little suckers could not distinguish the difference between the white and dark spots.

We’re sure mosquitoes don’t mean any harm – they’re just trying to survive and reproduce like any other species – but thanks to this new tool, gone might be the days of having to douse yourself in bug spray that smells like a mix of chemicals and melon.

A 64-year-old White woman with very few medical problems complains of bug bites. She had seen no bugs and had no visible bites. There is no rash. “So what bit me?” she asked, pulling her mask down for emphasis. How should I know? I thought, but didn’t say. She and I have been through this many times.

Before I could respond, she filled the pause with her usual complaints including how hard it is to get an appointment with me and how every appointment with me is a waste of her time. Ignoring the contradistinction of her charges, I took some satisfaction realizing she has just given me a topic to write about: The hateful patient.

Hateful patients are not diagnostic dilemmas, they are the patients whose name on your schedule evokes fury. They are frustrating, troublesome, rude, sometimes racist, misogynistic, depressing, hopeless, and disheartening. They call you, email you, and come to see you just to annoy you (so it seems). And they’re everywhere. According to one study, nearly one in six are “difficult patients.” It feels like more lately because the vaccine has brought haters back into clinic, just to get us.

But hateful patients aren’t new. In 1978, James E. Groves, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist, wrote a now-classic New England Journal of Medicine article about them called: Taking Care of the Hateful Patient. Even Osler, back in 1889, covered these patients in his lecture to University of Pennsylvania students, advising us to “deal gently with this deliciously credulous old human nature in which we work ... restrain your indignation.” But like much of Osler’s advice, it is easier said than done.

Dr. Groves is more helpful, and presents a model to understand them. Difficult patients, as we’d now call them, fall into four stereotypes: dependent clingers, entitled demanders, manipulative help-rejectors, and self-destructive deniers. It’s Dr. Groves’s bottom line I found insightful. He says that, when patients create negative feelings in us, we’re more likely to make errors. He then gives sound advice: Set firm boundaries and learn to counter the countertransference these patients provoke. Don’t disavow or discharge, Dr. Groves advises, redirect these emotions to motivate you to dig deeper. There you’ll find clinical data that will facilitate understanding and enable better patient management. Yes, easier said.

In addition to Dr. Groves’s analysis of how we harm these patients, I’d add that these disagreeable, malingering patients also harm us doctors. The hangover from a difficult patient encounter can linger for several appointments later or, worse, carryover to home. And now with patient emails proliferating, demanding patients behave as if we have an inexhaustible ability to engage them. We don’t. Many physicians are struggling to care at all; their low empathy battery warnings are blinking red, less than 1% remaining.

What is toxic to us doctors is the maelstrom of cognitive dissonance these patients create in us. Have you ever felt relief to learn a difficult patient has “finally” died? How could we think such a thing?! Didn’t we choose medicine instead of Wall Street because we care about people? But manipulative patients can make us care less. We even use secret language with each other to protect ourselves from them, those GOMERs (get out of my emergency room), bouncebacks, patients with status dramaticus, and those ornery FTDs (failure to die). Save yourself, we say to each other, this patient will kill you.

Caring for my somatizing 64-year-old patient has been difficult, but writing this has helped me reframe our interaction. Unsurprisingly, at the end of her failed visit she asked when she could see me again. “I need to schedule now because I have to find a neighbor to watch my dogs. It takes two buses to come here and I can’t take them with me.” Ah, there’s the clinical data Dr. Groves said I’d find – she’s not here to hurt me, she’s here because I’m all she’s got. At least for this difficult patient, I have a plan. At the bottom of my note I type “RTC 3 mo.”

Dr. Benabio is director of healthcare transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

A 64-year-old White woman with very few medical problems complains of bug bites. She had seen no bugs and had no visible bites. There is no rash. “So what bit me?” she asked, pulling her mask down for emphasis. How should I know? I thought, but didn’t say. She and I have been through this many times.

Before I could respond, she filled the pause with her usual complaints including how hard it is to get an appointment with me and how every appointment with me is a waste of her time. Ignoring the contradistinction of her charges, I took some satisfaction realizing she has just given me a topic to write about: The hateful patient.

Hateful patients are not diagnostic dilemmas, they are the patients whose name on your schedule evokes fury. They are frustrating, troublesome, rude, sometimes racist, misogynistic, depressing, hopeless, and disheartening. They call you, email you, and come to see you just to annoy you (so it seems). And they’re everywhere. According to one study, nearly one in six are “difficult patients.” It feels like more lately because the vaccine has brought haters back into clinic, just to get us.

But hateful patients aren’t new. In 1978, James E. Groves, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist, wrote a now-classic New England Journal of Medicine article about them called: Taking Care of the Hateful Patient. Even Osler, back in 1889, covered these patients in his lecture to University of Pennsylvania students, advising us to “deal gently with this deliciously credulous old human nature in which we work ... restrain your indignation.” But like much of Osler’s advice, it is easier said than done.

Dr. Groves is more helpful, and presents a model to understand them. Difficult patients, as we’d now call them, fall into four stereotypes: dependent clingers, entitled demanders, manipulative help-rejectors, and self-destructive deniers. It’s Dr. Groves’s bottom line I found insightful. He says that, when patients create negative feelings in us, we’re more likely to make errors. He then gives sound advice: Set firm boundaries and learn to counter the countertransference these patients provoke. Don’t disavow or discharge, Dr. Groves advises, redirect these emotions to motivate you to dig deeper. There you’ll find clinical data that will facilitate understanding and enable better patient management. Yes, easier said.

In addition to Dr. Groves’s analysis of how we harm these patients, I’d add that these disagreeable, malingering patients also harm us doctors. The hangover from a difficult patient encounter can linger for several appointments later or, worse, carryover to home. And now with patient emails proliferating, demanding patients behave as if we have an inexhaustible ability to engage them. We don’t. Many physicians are struggling to care at all; their low empathy battery warnings are blinking red, less than 1% remaining.

What is toxic to us doctors is the maelstrom of cognitive dissonance these patients create in us. Have you ever felt relief to learn a difficult patient has “finally” died? How could we think such a thing?! Didn’t we choose medicine instead of Wall Street because we care about people? But manipulative patients can make us care less. We even use secret language with each other to protect ourselves from them, those GOMERs (get out of my emergency room), bouncebacks, patients with status dramaticus, and those ornery FTDs (failure to die). Save yourself, we say to each other, this patient will kill you.

Caring for my somatizing 64-year-old patient has been difficult, but writing this has helped me reframe our interaction. Unsurprisingly, at the end of her failed visit she asked when she could see me again. “I need to schedule now because I have to find a neighbor to watch my dogs. It takes two buses to come here and I can’t take them with me.” Ah, there’s the clinical data Dr. Groves said I’d find – she’s not here to hurt me, she’s here because I’m all she’s got. At least for this difficult patient, I have a plan. At the bottom of my note I type “RTC 3 mo.”

Dr. Benabio is director of healthcare transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

A 64-year-old White woman with very few medical problems complains of bug bites. She had seen no bugs and had no visible bites. There is no rash. “So what bit me?” she asked, pulling her mask down for emphasis. How should I know? I thought, but didn’t say. She and I have been through this many times.

Before I could respond, she filled the pause with her usual complaints including how hard it is to get an appointment with me and how every appointment with me is a waste of her time. Ignoring the contradistinction of her charges, I took some satisfaction realizing she has just given me a topic to write about: The hateful patient.

Hateful patients are not diagnostic dilemmas, they are the patients whose name on your schedule evokes fury. They are frustrating, troublesome, rude, sometimes racist, misogynistic, depressing, hopeless, and disheartening. They call you, email you, and come to see you just to annoy you (so it seems). And they’re everywhere. According to one study, nearly one in six are “difficult patients.” It feels like more lately because the vaccine has brought haters back into clinic, just to get us.

But hateful patients aren’t new. In 1978, James E. Groves, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist, wrote a now-classic New England Journal of Medicine article about them called: Taking Care of the Hateful Patient. Even Osler, back in 1889, covered these patients in his lecture to University of Pennsylvania students, advising us to “deal gently with this deliciously credulous old human nature in which we work ... restrain your indignation.” But like much of Osler’s advice, it is easier said than done.

Dr. Groves is more helpful, and presents a model to understand them. Difficult patients, as we’d now call them, fall into four stereotypes: dependent clingers, entitled demanders, manipulative help-rejectors, and self-destructive deniers. It’s Dr. Groves’s bottom line I found insightful. He says that, when patients create negative feelings in us, we’re more likely to make errors. He then gives sound advice: Set firm boundaries and learn to counter the countertransference these patients provoke. Don’t disavow or discharge, Dr. Groves advises, redirect these emotions to motivate you to dig deeper. There you’ll find clinical data that will facilitate understanding and enable better patient management. Yes, easier said.

In addition to Dr. Groves’s analysis of how we harm these patients, I’d add that these disagreeable, malingering patients also harm us doctors. The hangover from a difficult patient encounter can linger for several appointments later or, worse, carryover to home. And now with patient emails proliferating, demanding patients behave as if we have an inexhaustible ability to engage them. We don’t. Many physicians are struggling to care at all; their low empathy battery warnings are blinking red, less than 1% remaining.

What is toxic to us doctors is the maelstrom of cognitive dissonance these patients create in us. Have you ever felt relief to learn a difficult patient has “finally” died? How could we think such a thing?! Didn’t we choose medicine instead of Wall Street because we care about people? But manipulative patients can make us care less. We even use secret language with each other to protect ourselves from them, those GOMERs (get out of my emergency room), bouncebacks, patients with status dramaticus, and those ornery FTDs (failure to die). Save yourself, we say to each other, this patient will kill you.

Caring for my somatizing 64-year-old patient has been difficult, but writing this has helped me reframe our interaction. Unsurprisingly, at the end of her failed visit she asked when she could see me again. “I need to schedule now because I have to find a neighbor to watch my dogs. It takes two buses to come here and I can’t take them with me.” Ah, there’s the clinical data Dr. Groves said I’d find – she’s not here to hurt me, she’s here because I’m all she’s got. At least for this difficult patient, I have a plan. At the bottom of my note I type “RTC 3 mo.”

Dr. Benabio is director of healthcare transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for the noninvasive BrainsWay Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Deep TMS) System to include treatment of comorbid anxiety symptoms in adult patients with depression, the company has announced.

As reported by this news organization, the neurostimulation system has previously received FDA approval for treatment-resistant major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and smoking addiction.

In the August 18 announcement, BrainsWay reported that it has also received 510(k) clearance from the FDA to market its TMS system for the reduction of anxious depression symptoms.

“This clearance is confirmation of what many have believed anecdotally for years – that Deep TMS is a unique form of therapy that can address comorbid anxiety symptoms using the same depression treatment protocol,” Aron Tendler, MD, chief medical officer at BrainsWay, said in a press release.

‘Consistent, robust’ effect

Before receiving approval, the company submitted data on 573 patients who underwent this treatment while participating in 11 studies, which included both randomized controlled trials and open-label studies.

“The data demonstrated a treatment effect that was consistent, robust, and clinically meaningful for decreasing anxiety symptoms in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder [MDD],” the company said in its release.

Data from three of the randomized trials showed an effect size of 0.3 when compared with a sham device and an effect size of 0.9 when compared with medication. The overall, weighted, pooled effect size was 0.55.

The company noted that in more than 70 published studies with about 16,000 total participants, effect sizes have ranged from 0.2-0.37 for drug-based anxiety treatments.

“The expanded FDA labeling now allows BrainsWay to market its Deep TMS System for the treatment of depressive episodes and for decreasing anxiety symptoms for those who may exhibit comorbid anxiety symptoms in adult patients suffering from [MDD] and who failed to achieve satisfactory improvement from previous antidepressant medication treatment in the current episode,” the company said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for the noninvasive BrainsWay Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Deep TMS) System to include treatment of comorbid anxiety symptoms in adult patients with depression, the company has announced.

As reported by this news organization, the neurostimulation system has previously received FDA approval for treatment-resistant major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and smoking addiction.

In the August 18 announcement, BrainsWay reported that it has also received 510(k) clearance from the FDA to market its TMS system for the reduction of anxious depression symptoms.

“This clearance is confirmation of what many have believed anecdotally for years – that Deep TMS is a unique form of therapy that can address comorbid anxiety symptoms using the same depression treatment protocol,” Aron Tendler, MD, chief medical officer at BrainsWay, said in a press release.

‘Consistent, robust’ effect

Before receiving approval, the company submitted data on 573 patients who underwent this treatment while participating in 11 studies, which included both randomized controlled trials and open-label studies.

“The data demonstrated a treatment effect that was consistent, robust, and clinically meaningful for decreasing anxiety symptoms in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder [MDD],” the company said in its release.

Data from three of the randomized trials showed an effect size of 0.3 when compared with a sham device and an effect size of 0.9 when compared with medication. The overall, weighted, pooled effect size was 0.55.

The company noted that in more than 70 published studies with about 16,000 total participants, effect sizes have ranged from 0.2-0.37 for drug-based anxiety treatments.

“The expanded FDA labeling now allows BrainsWay to market its Deep TMS System for the treatment of depressive episodes and for decreasing anxiety symptoms for those who may exhibit comorbid anxiety symptoms in adult patients suffering from [MDD] and who failed to achieve satisfactory improvement from previous antidepressant medication treatment in the current episode,” the company said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for the noninvasive BrainsWay Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Deep TMS) System to include treatment of comorbid anxiety symptoms in adult patients with depression, the company has announced.

As reported by this news organization, the neurostimulation system has previously received FDA approval for treatment-resistant major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and smoking addiction.

In the August 18 announcement, BrainsWay reported that it has also received 510(k) clearance from the FDA to market its TMS system for the reduction of anxious depression symptoms.

“This clearance is confirmation of what many have believed anecdotally for years – that Deep TMS is a unique form of therapy that can address comorbid anxiety symptoms using the same depression treatment protocol,” Aron Tendler, MD, chief medical officer at BrainsWay, said in a press release.

‘Consistent, robust’ effect

Before receiving approval, the company submitted data on 573 patients who underwent this treatment while participating in 11 studies, which included both randomized controlled trials and open-label studies.

“The data demonstrated a treatment effect that was consistent, robust, and clinically meaningful for decreasing anxiety symptoms in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder [MDD],” the company said in its release.

Data from three of the randomized trials showed an effect size of 0.3 when compared with a sham device and an effect size of 0.9 when compared with medication. The overall, weighted, pooled effect size was 0.55.

The company noted that in more than 70 published studies with about 16,000 total participants, effect sizes have ranged from 0.2-0.37 for drug-based anxiety treatments.

“The expanded FDA labeling now allows BrainsWay to market its Deep TMS System for the treatment of depressive episodes and for decreasing anxiety symptoms for those who may exhibit comorbid anxiety symptoms in adult patients suffering from [MDD] and who failed to achieve satisfactory improvement from previous antidepressant medication treatment in the current episode,” the company said.

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

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Pfizer has recalled four more lots of the smoking cessation drug varenicline (Chantix), according to an Aug. 16 update on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website.

In a new FDA MedWatch, the agency notes that these 0.5 mg/1 mg tablets are being recalled because of the presence of N-nitroso-varenicline, a nitrosamine impurity, at a level higher than Pfizer’s acceptable intake limit.

On July 2, the FDA reported that Pfizer had voluntarily recalled nine lots of the drug for this reason. As reported by this news organization, the company added three more lots to the recall a few weeks later. The new recall now brings to 16 the number of lots that have been recalled.

In the update, the FDA noted that, although long-term ingestion of the impurity “may be associated with a theoretical potential increased cancer risk in humans,” there is no immediate risk in taking this medication. The agency added that no related adverse events (AEs) have been reported.

The four additional lots included in the newest recall are as follows:

• 00018522 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018523 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018739 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018740 (expiration date: August 2021).

The recalled lots were distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico from June 2019 to June 2021.

As before, the FDA noted that the benefits of stopping smoking “outweigh the theoretical potential cancer risk” from varenicline’s impurity.

It added that, although the impurities may increase risk for cancer if a high level of exposure continues over a long period, the drug is intended as a short-term treatment to aid in smoking cessation.

For now, clinicians should report any AEs from varenicline to the FDA’s MedWatch program, and patients taking this treatment should consult with their health care practitioner or pharmacy, the update notes.

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

Pfizer has recalled four more lots of the smoking cessation drug varenicline (Chantix), according to an Aug. 16 update on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website.

In a new FDA MedWatch, the agency notes that these 0.5 mg/1 mg tablets are being recalled because of the presence of N-nitroso-varenicline, a nitrosamine impurity, at a level higher than Pfizer’s acceptable intake limit.

On July 2, the FDA reported that Pfizer had voluntarily recalled nine lots of the drug for this reason. As reported by this news organization, the company added three more lots to the recall a few weeks later. The new recall now brings to 16 the number of lots that have been recalled.

In the update, the FDA noted that, although long-term ingestion of the impurity “may be associated with a theoretical potential increased cancer risk in humans,” there is no immediate risk in taking this medication. The agency added that no related adverse events (AEs) have been reported.

The four additional lots included in the newest recall are as follows:

• 00018522 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018523 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018739 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018740 (expiration date: August 2021).

The recalled lots were distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico from June 2019 to June 2021.

As before, the FDA noted that the benefits of stopping smoking “outweigh the theoretical potential cancer risk” from varenicline’s impurity.

It added that, although the impurities may increase risk for cancer if a high level of exposure continues over a long period, the drug is intended as a short-term treatment to aid in smoking cessation.

For now, clinicians should report any AEs from varenicline to the FDA’s MedWatch program, and patients taking this treatment should consult with their health care practitioner or pharmacy, the update notes.

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

Pfizer has recalled four more lots of the smoking cessation drug varenicline (Chantix), according to an Aug. 16 update on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website.

In a new FDA MedWatch, the agency notes that these 0.5 mg/1 mg tablets are being recalled because of the presence of N-nitroso-varenicline, a nitrosamine impurity, at a level higher than Pfizer’s acceptable intake limit.

On July 2, the FDA reported that Pfizer had voluntarily recalled nine lots of the drug for this reason. As reported by this news organization, the company added three more lots to the recall a few weeks later. The new recall now brings to 16 the number of lots that have been recalled.

In the update, the FDA noted that, although long-term ingestion of the impurity “may be associated with a theoretical potential increased cancer risk in humans,” there is no immediate risk in taking this medication. The agency added that no related adverse events (AEs) have been reported.

The four additional lots included in the newest recall are as follows:

• 00018522 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018523 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018739 (expiration date: August 2021).
• 00018740 (expiration date: August 2021).

The recalled lots were distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico from June 2019 to June 2021.

As before, the FDA noted that the benefits of stopping smoking “outweigh the theoretical potential cancer risk” from varenicline’s impurity.

It added that, although the impurities may increase risk for cancer if a high level of exposure continues over a long period, the drug is intended as a short-term treatment to aid in smoking cessation.

For now, clinicians should report any AEs from varenicline to the FDA’s MedWatch program, and patients taking this treatment should consult with their health care practitioner or pharmacy, the update notes.

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

It is well known that survivors of critical care are at heightened risk of mental health disorders even months afterward they are discharged, but it’s less clear what factors might contribute to those outcomes. A new attempt to identify risk factors for post-ICU depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as worse quality of life, paints a complex picture.

Age, mental preexisting mental health concerns, acute emotional stress at the time of critical care, and post-care physical impairment all may play a role, according to the multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in Brazil, which was published in CHEST .

Previous systematic reviews have shown raised frequencies mental health disorders following ICU discharge, including anxiety (32%-40%), depression (29%-34%), and PTSD (16%-23%). Few studies have looked at the potential impact of preexisting conditions or post-ICU disability on these outcomes, yet that information is critical to key to designing effective prevention and rehabilitation interventions.

The results suggest that preexisting mental health and factors associated with the critical illness, which have gained attention as potential factors, aren’t sufficient to explain these outcomes. “Our data suggest that the network of potential risk factors for mental illness among patients who have been discharged from the ICU is much more complex and may involve risk factors from multiple domains. ... Long-term mental health disorders after critical illness may be the result of the interaction among stressors before ICU stay, during ICU stay, and after ICU stay, calling attention to the need for interdisciplinary and multifaceted strategies aimed at preventing and screening for mental health disorders after ICU discharge,” Cassiano Teixeira, MD, PhD, of the Postgraduation of Pulmonology–Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers also noted that some risk factors could be screened and may be modifiable, including anxiety and depression symptoms at ICU discharge, as well as reduced physical function status.
 

Complications or risk factors?

The findings are significant, though they may represent complications of emotional distress following ICU stays, rather than risk factors that predict it, according to an accompanying editorial. The author, O. Joseph Bienvenu III, MD, PhD, who is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He called for prospective studies to determine the predictive value of these factors. “If we are to improve long-term mental health after critical illnesses, this predictive information will be vital to selective prevention efforts.”

Dr. O. Joseph Bienvenu

Potential interventions could include psychological treatment in the ICU, ICU follow-up clinics, support groups, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, among others. Whichever approach is used, it should be targeted, according to Dr. Bienvenu, since patients who have greater emotional distress seem to gain the most benefit from such interventions.

The researchers examined outcomes among 579 adults who had spent at least 72 hours in the ICU. The median age was 61 years, and 47% were women.

Six months after release from the ICU, telephone assessments by trained researchers revealed that 48% had impairment in physical function, compared with the time preceding ICU admission. 36.2% of participants had a mental health disorder: 24.2% reported anxiety, 20.9% had depression, and 15.4% had PTSD.

Increasing numbers of psychiatric syndromes, from 0 to 3, was associated with worse scores on the mental dimension on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, but there was no relationship with scores on the physical dimension.
 

Risks to mental health

Clinical characteristics associated with risk of anxiety at 6 months post discharge included being 65 years or older (prevalence ratio, 0.63; P = .009), a history of depression (PR, 1.52; P = .009), anxiety at discharge (PR, 1.65; P = .003), depression at discharge (HR, 1.44; P = .02), physical dependence (PR, 1.48; P = .01), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months post discharge (PR, 1.38; P = .04).

Characteristics associated with depression at 6 months post discharge included a history of depression (PR, 1.78; P = .001), symptoms of depression at discharge (PR, 3.04; P < .001), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months (PR, 1.53; P = .01).

Characteristics associated with PTSD at 6 months post discharge were depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.70; P = .01), physical dependence (PR, 1.79; P = .01), and reduced physical status at 6 months (PR, 1.62; P = .02).

Characteristics associated with any mental health disorder included higher education (PR, 0.74; P = .04), a history of depression (PR, 1.32; P = .02), anxiety symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.55; P = .001), depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.50; P = .001), and physical dependence at 6 months following discharge (PR, 1.66; P < .001).

“The lower HRQoL found in ICU survivors with mental health disorders in comparison with those without is a reason for concern. This finding, in association with the higher prevalence of psychiatric syndromes among ICU survivors, reinforces the importance of assessing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms among ICU survivors, because these syndromes typically are long lasting and underdiagnosed, and their occurrence may affect quality of life, survival, and costs in the context of care after ICU discharge,” according to the researchers.

The authors of the study and Dr. Bienvenu have no relevant financial disclosures.

It is well known that survivors of critical care are at heightened risk of mental health disorders even months afterward they are discharged, but it’s less clear what factors might contribute to those outcomes. A new attempt to identify risk factors for post-ICU depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as worse quality of life, paints a complex picture.

Age, mental preexisting mental health concerns, acute emotional stress at the time of critical care, and post-care physical impairment all may play a role, according to the multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in Brazil, which was published in CHEST .

Previous systematic reviews have shown raised frequencies mental health disorders following ICU discharge, including anxiety (32%-40%), depression (29%-34%), and PTSD (16%-23%). Few studies have looked at the potential impact of preexisting conditions or post-ICU disability on these outcomes, yet that information is critical to key to designing effective prevention and rehabilitation interventions.

The results suggest that preexisting mental health and factors associated with the critical illness, which have gained attention as potential factors, aren’t sufficient to explain these outcomes. “Our data suggest that the network of potential risk factors for mental illness among patients who have been discharged from the ICU is much more complex and may involve risk factors from multiple domains. ... Long-term mental health disorders after critical illness may be the result of the interaction among stressors before ICU stay, during ICU stay, and after ICU stay, calling attention to the need for interdisciplinary and multifaceted strategies aimed at preventing and screening for mental health disorders after ICU discharge,” Cassiano Teixeira, MD, PhD, of the Postgraduation of Pulmonology–Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers also noted that some risk factors could be screened and may be modifiable, including anxiety and depression symptoms at ICU discharge, as well as reduced physical function status.
 

Complications or risk factors?

The findings are significant, though they may represent complications of emotional distress following ICU stays, rather than risk factors that predict it, according to an accompanying editorial. The author, O. Joseph Bienvenu III, MD, PhD, who is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He called for prospective studies to determine the predictive value of these factors. “If we are to improve long-term mental health after critical illnesses, this predictive information will be vital to selective prevention efforts.”

Dr. O. Joseph Bienvenu

Potential interventions could include psychological treatment in the ICU, ICU follow-up clinics, support groups, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, among others. Whichever approach is used, it should be targeted, according to Dr. Bienvenu, since patients who have greater emotional distress seem to gain the most benefit from such interventions.

The researchers examined outcomes among 579 adults who had spent at least 72 hours in the ICU. The median age was 61 years, and 47% were women.

Six months after release from the ICU, telephone assessments by trained researchers revealed that 48% had impairment in physical function, compared with the time preceding ICU admission. 36.2% of participants had a mental health disorder: 24.2% reported anxiety, 20.9% had depression, and 15.4% had PTSD.

Increasing numbers of psychiatric syndromes, from 0 to 3, was associated with worse scores on the mental dimension on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, but there was no relationship with scores on the physical dimension.
 

Risks to mental health

Clinical characteristics associated with risk of anxiety at 6 months post discharge included being 65 years or older (prevalence ratio, 0.63; P = .009), a history of depression (PR, 1.52; P = .009), anxiety at discharge (PR, 1.65; P = .003), depression at discharge (HR, 1.44; P = .02), physical dependence (PR, 1.48; P = .01), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months post discharge (PR, 1.38; P = .04).

Characteristics associated with depression at 6 months post discharge included a history of depression (PR, 1.78; P = .001), symptoms of depression at discharge (PR, 3.04; P < .001), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months (PR, 1.53; P = .01).

Characteristics associated with PTSD at 6 months post discharge were depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.70; P = .01), physical dependence (PR, 1.79; P = .01), and reduced physical status at 6 months (PR, 1.62; P = .02).

Characteristics associated with any mental health disorder included higher education (PR, 0.74; P = .04), a history of depression (PR, 1.32; P = .02), anxiety symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.55; P = .001), depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.50; P = .001), and physical dependence at 6 months following discharge (PR, 1.66; P < .001).

“The lower HRQoL found in ICU survivors with mental health disorders in comparison with those without is a reason for concern. This finding, in association with the higher prevalence of psychiatric syndromes among ICU survivors, reinforces the importance of assessing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms among ICU survivors, because these syndromes typically are long lasting and underdiagnosed, and their occurrence may affect quality of life, survival, and costs in the context of care after ICU discharge,” according to the researchers.

The authors of the study and Dr. Bienvenu have no relevant financial disclosures.

It is well known that survivors of critical care are at heightened risk of mental health disorders even months afterward they are discharged, but it’s less clear what factors might contribute to those outcomes. A new attempt to identify risk factors for post-ICU depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as worse quality of life, paints a complex picture.

Age, mental preexisting mental health concerns, acute emotional stress at the time of critical care, and post-care physical impairment all may play a role, according to the multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in Brazil, which was published in CHEST .

Previous systematic reviews have shown raised frequencies mental health disorders following ICU discharge, including anxiety (32%-40%), depression (29%-34%), and PTSD (16%-23%). Few studies have looked at the potential impact of preexisting conditions or post-ICU disability on these outcomes, yet that information is critical to key to designing effective prevention and rehabilitation interventions.

The results suggest that preexisting mental health and factors associated with the critical illness, which have gained attention as potential factors, aren’t sufficient to explain these outcomes. “Our data suggest that the network of potential risk factors for mental illness among patients who have been discharged from the ICU is much more complex and may involve risk factors from multiple domains. ... Long-term mental health disorders after critical illness may be the result of the interaction among stressors before ICU stay, during ICU stay, and after ICU stay, calling attention to the need for interdisciplinary and multifaceted strategies aimed at preventing and screening for mental health disorders after ICU discharge,” Cassiano Teixeira, MD, PhD, of the Postgraduation of Pulmonology–Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers also noted that some risk factors could be screened and may be modifiable, including anxiety and depression symptoms at ICU discharge, as well as reduced physical function status.
 

Complications or risk factors?

The findings are significant, though they may represent complications of emotional distress following ICU stays, rather than risk factors that predict it, according to an accompanying editorial. The author, O. Joseph Bienvenu III, MD, PhD, who is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He called for prospective studies to determine the predictive value of these factors. “If we are to improve long-term mental health after critical illnesses, this predictive information will be vital to selective prevention efforts.”

Dr. O. Joseph Bienvenu

Potential interventions could include psychological treatment in the ICU, ICU follow-up clinics, support groups, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, among others. Whichever approach is used, it should be targeted, according to Dr. Bienvenu, since patients who have greater emotional distress seem to gain the most benefit from such interventions.

The researchers examined outcomes among 579 adults who had spent at least 72 hours in the ICU. The median age was 61 years, and 47% were women.

Six months after release from the ICU, telephone assessments by trained researchers revealed that 48% had impairment in physical function, compared with the time preceding ICU admission. 36.2% of participants had a mental health disorder: 24.2% reported anxiety, 20.9% had depression, and 15.4% had PTSD.

Increasing numbers of psychiatric syndromes, from 0 to 3, was associated with worse scores on the mental dimension on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, but there was no relationship with scores on the physical dimension.
 

Risks to mental health

Clinical characteristics associated with risk of anxiety at 6 months post discharge included being 65 years or older (prevalence ratio, 0.63; P = .009), a history of depression (PR, 1.52; P = .009), anxiety at discharge (PR, 1.65; P = .003), depression at discharge (HR, 1.44; P = .02), physical dependence (PR, 1.48; P = .01), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months post discharge (PR, 1.38; P = .04).

Characteristics associated with depression at 6 months post discharge included a history of depression (PR, 1.78; P = .001), symptoms of depression at discharge (PR, 3.04; P < .001), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months (PR, 1.53; P = .01).

Characteristics associated with PTSD at 6 months post discharge were depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.70; P = .01), physical dependence (PR, 1.79; P = .01), and reduced physical status at 6 months (PR, 1.62; P = .02).

Characteristics associated with any mental health disorder included higher education (PR, 0.74; P = .04), a history of depression (PR, 1.32; P = .02), anxiety symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.55; P = .001), depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.50; P = .001), and physical dependence at 6 months following discharge (PR, 1.66; P < .001).

“The lower HRQoL found in ICU survivors with mental health disorders in comparison with those without is a reason for concern. This finding, in association with the higher prevalence of psychiatric syndromes among ICU survivors, reinforces the importance of assessing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms among ICU survivors, because these syndromes typically are long lasting and underdiagnosed, and their occurrence may affect quality of life, survival, and costs in the context of care after ICU discharge,” according to the researchers.

The authors of the study and Dr. Bienvenu have no relevant financial disclosures.

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) taken by pregnant women are linked to a low rate of adverse effects in their children, new research suggests.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

Data from a large registry study of almost 2,000 women showed that 2.5% of the live births in a group that had been exposed to antipsychotics had confirmed major malformations compared with 2% of the live births in a non-exposed group. This translated into an estimated odds ratio of 1.5 for major malformations.

“The 2.5% absolute risk for major malformations is consistent with the estimates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national baseline rate of major malformations in the general population,” lead author Adele Viguera, MD, MPH, director of research for women’s mental health, Cleveland Clinic Neurological Institute, told this news organization.

“Our results are reassuring and suggest that second-generation antipsychotics, as a class, do not substantially increase the risk of major malformations,” Dr. Viguera said.

The findings were published online August 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Safety data scarce

Despite the increasing use of SGAs to treat a “spectrum of psychiatric disorders,” relatively little data are available on the reproductive safety of these agents, Dr. Viguera said.

The National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics (NPRAA) was established in 2008 to determine risk for major malformation among infants exposed to these medications during the first trimester, relative to a comparison group of unexposed infants of mothers with histories of psychiatric morbidity.

The NPRAA follows pregnant women (aged 18 to 45 years) with psychiatric illness who are exposed or unexposed to SGAs during pregnancy. Participants are recruited through nationwide provider referral, self-referral, and advertisement through the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health website.

The women are interviewed by phone at three timepoints: Enrollment, 7 months, and 3 months postpartum. Specific data collected are shown in the following table.

Demographic differences

Of the 1,906 women who enrolled as of April 2020, 1,311 (mean age, 32.6 years; 81.3% White) completed the study and were eligible for inclusion in the analysis.

Although the groups had a virtually identical mean age, fewer women in the exposure group were married compared with those in the non-exposure group (77% vs. 90%, respectively) and fewer had a college education (71.2% vs. 87.8%). There was also a higher percentage of first-trimester cigarette smokers in the exposure group (18.4% vs. 5.1%).

On the other hand, more women in the non-exposure group used alcohol than in the exposure group (28.6% vs. 21.4%, respectively).

The most frequent psychiatric disorder in the exposure group was bipolar disorder (63.9%), followed by major depression (12.9%), anxiety (5.8%), and schizophrenia (4.5%). Only 11.4% of women in the non-exposure group were diagnosed with bipolar disorder, whereas 34.1% were diagnosed with major depression, 31.3% with anxiety, and none with schizophrenia.

Notably, a large percentage of women in both groups had a history of postpartum depression and/or psychosis (41.4% and 35.5%, respectively).

The most frequently used SGAs in the exposure group were quetiapine (Seroquel), aripiprazole (Abilify), and lurasidone (Latuda).

Participants in the exposure group had a higher age at initial onset of primary psychiatric diagnosis and a lower proportion of lifetime illness compared with those in the non-exposure group.
 

Major clinical implication?

Among 640 live births in the exposure group, which included 17 twin pregnancies and 1 triplet pregnancy, 2.5% reported major malformations. Among 704 live births in the control group, which included 14 twin pregnancies, 1.99% reported major malformations.

The estimated OR for major malformations comparing exposed and unexposed infants was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.625-3.517).

The authors note that their findings were consistent with one of the largest studies to date, which included a nationwide sample of more than 1 million women. Its results showed that, among infants exposed to SGAs versus those who were not exposed, the estimated risk ratio after adjusting for psychiatric conditions was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.96-1.16).

Additionally, “a hallmark of a teratogen is that it tends to cause a specific type or pattern of malformations, and we found no preponderance of one single type of major malformation or specific pattern of malformations among the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Viguera said

“A major clinical implication of these findings is that for women with major mood and/or psychotic disorders, treatment with an atypical antipsychotic during pregnancy may be the most prudent clinical decision, much as continued treatment is recommended for pregnant women with other serious and chronic medical conditions, such as epilepsy,” she added.
 

The concept of ‘satisficing’

Commenting on the study, Vivien Burt, MD, PhD, founder and director/consultant of the Women’s Life Center at the Resnick University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Neuropsychiatric Hospital, called the findings “reassuring.”

The results “support the conclusion that in pregnant women with serious psychiatric illnesses, the use of SGAs is often a better option than avoiding these medications and exposing both the women and their offspring to the adverse consequences of maternal mental illness,” she said.

An accompanying editorial co-authored by Dr. Burt and colleague Sonya Rasminsky, MD, introduced the concept of “satisficing” – a term coined by Herbert Simon, a behavioral economist and Nobel Laureate. “Satisficing” is a “decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory (‘good enough’) outcome rather than a perfect one.”

The concept applies to decision-making beyond the field of economics “and is critical to how physicians help patients make decisions when they are faced with multiple treatment options,” said Dr. Burt, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at UCLA.

“The goal of ‘satisficing’ is to plan for the most satisfactory outcome, knowing that there are always unknowns, so in an uncertain world, clinicians should carefully help their patients make decisions that will allow them to achieve an outcome they can best live with,” she noted.

The investigators note that their findings may not be generalizable to the larger population of women taking SGAs, given that their participants were “overwhelmingly White, married, and well-educated women.”

They add that enrollment into the NPRAA registry is ongoing and larger sample sizes will “further narrow the confidence interval around the risk estimates and allow for adjustment of likely sources of confounding.”

The NPRAA is supported by Alkermes, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, SAGE Therapeutics, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Aurobindo Pharma. Past sponsors of the NPRAA are listed in the original paper. Dr. Viguera receives research support from the NPRAA, Alkermes Biopharmaceuticals, Aurobindo Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and SAGE Therapeutics and receives adviser/consulting fees from Up-to-Date. Dr. Burt has been a consultant/speaker for Sage Therapeutics. Dr. Rasminsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) taken by pregnant women are linked to a low rate of adverse effects in their children, new research suggests.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

Data from a large registry study of almost 2,000 women showed that 2.5% of the live births in a group that had been exposed to antipsychotics had confirmed major malformations compared with 2% of the live births in a non-exposed group. This translated into an estimated odds ratio of 1.5 for major malformations.

“The 2.5% absolute risk for major malformations is consistent with the estimates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national baseline rate of major malformations in the general population,” lead author Adele Viguera, MD, MPH, director of research for women’s mental health, Cleveland Clinic Neurological Institute, told this news organization.

“Our results are reassuring and suggest that second-generation antipsychotics, as a class, do not substantially increase the risk of major malformations,” Dr. Viguera said.

The findings were published online August 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Safety data scarce

Despite the increasing use of SGAs to treat a “spectrum of psychiatric disorders,” relatively little data are available on the reproductive safety of these agents, Dr. Viguera said.

The National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics (NPRAA) was established in 2008 to determine risk for major malformation among infants exposed to these medications during the first trimester, relative to a comparison group of unexposed infants of mothers with histories of psychiatric morbidity.

The NPRAA follows pregnant women (aged 18 to 45 years) with psychiatric illness who are exposed or unexposed to SGAs during pregnancy. Participants are recruited through nationwide provider referral, self-referral, and advertisement through the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health website.

The women are interviewed by phone at three timepoints: Enrollment, 7 months, and 3 months postpartum. Specific data collected are shown in the following table.

Demographic differences

Of the 1,906 women who enrolled as of April 2020, 1,311 (mean age, 32.6 years; 81.3% White) completed the study and were eligible for inclusion in the analysis.

Although the groups had a virtually identical mean age, fewer women in the exposure group were married compared with those in the non-exposure group (77% vs. 90%, respectively) and fewer had a college education (71.2% vs. 87.8%). There was also a higher percentage of first-trimester cigarette smokers in the exposure group (18.4% vs. 5.1%).

On the other hand, more women in the non-exposure group used alcohol than in the exposure group (28.6% vs. 21.4%, respectively).

The most frequent psychiatric disorder in the exposure group was bipolar disorder (63.9%), followed by major depression (12.9%), anxiety (5.8%), and schizophrenia (4.5%). Only 11.4% of women in the non-exposure group were diagnosed with bipolar disorder, whereas 34.1% were diagnosed with major depression, 31.3% with anxiety, and none with schizophrenia.

Notably, a large percentage of women in both groups had a history of postpartum depression and/or psychosis (41.4% and 35.5%, respectively).

The most frequently used SGAs in the exposure group were quetiapine (Seroquel), aripiprazole (Abilify), and lurasidone (Latuda).

Participants in the exposure group had a higher age at initial onset of primary psychiatric diagnosis and a lower proportion of lifetime illness compared with those in the non-exposure group.
 

Major clinical implication?

Among 640 live births in the exposure group, which included 17 twin pregnancies and 1 triplet pregnancy, 2.5% reported major malformations. Among 704 live births in the control group, which included 14 twin pregnancies, 1.99% reported major malformations.

The estimated OR for major malformations comparing exposed and unexposed infants was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.625-3.517).

The authors note that their findings were consistent with one of the largest studies to date, which included a nationwide sample of more than 1 million women. Its results showed that, among infants exposed to SGAs versus those who were not exposed, the estimated risk ratio after adjusting for psychiatric conditions was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.96-1.16).

Additionally, “a hallmark of a teratogen is that it tends to cause a specific type or pattern of malformations, and we found no preponderance of one single type of major malformation or specific pattern of malformations among the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Viguera said

“A major clinical implication of these findings is that for women with major mood and/or psychotic disorders, treatment with an atypical antipsychotic during pregnancy may be the most prudent clinical decision, much as continued treatment is recommended for pregnant women with other serious and chronic medical conditions, such as epilepsy,” she added.
 

The concept of ‘satisficing’

Commenting on the study, Vivien Burt, MD, PhD, founder and director/consultant of the Women’s Life Center at the Resnick University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Neuropsychiatric Hospital, called the findings “reassuring.”

The results “support the conclusion that in pregnant women with serious psychiatric illnesses, the use of SGAs is often a better option than avoiding these medications and exposing both the women and their offspring to the adverse consequences of maternal mental illness,” she said.

An accompanying editorial co-authored by Dr. Burt and colleague Sonya Rasminsky, MD, introduced the concept of “satisficing” – a term coined by Herbert Simon, a behavioral economist and Nobel Laureate. “Satisficing” is a “decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory (‘good enough’) outcome rather than a perfect one.”

The concept applies to decision-making beyond the field of economics “and is critical to how physicians help patients make decisions when they are faced with multiple treatment options,” said Dr. Burt, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at UCLA.

“The goal of ‘satisficing’ is to plan for the most satisfactory outcome, knowing that there are always unknowns, so in an uncertain world, clinicians should carefully help their patients make decisions that will allow them to achieve an outcome they can best live with,” she noted.

The investigators note that their findings may not be generalizable to the larger population of women taking SGAs, given that their participants were “overwhelmingly White, married, and well-educated women.”

They add that enrollment into the NPRAA registry is ongoing and larger sample sizes will “further narrow the confidence interval around the risk estimates and allow for adjustment of likely sources of confounding.”

The NPRAA is supported by Alkermes, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, SAGE Therapeutics, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Aurobindo Pharma. Past sponsors of the NPRAA are listed in the original paper. Dr. Viguera receives research support from the NPRAA, Alkermes Biopharmaceuticals, Aurobindo Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and SAGE Therapeutics and receives adviser/consulting fees from Up-to-Date. Dr. Burt has been a consultant/speaker for Sage Therapeutics. Dr. Rasminsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) taken by pregnant women are linked to a low rate of adverse effects in their children, new research suggests.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

Data from a large registry study of almost 2,000 women showed that 2.5% of the live births in a group that had been exposed to antipsychotics had confirmed major malformations compared with 2% of the live births in a non-exposed group. This translated into an estimated odds ratio of 1.5 for major malformations.

“The 2.5% absolute risk for major malformations is consistent with the estimates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national baseline rate of major malformations in the general population,” lead author Adele Viguera, MD, MPH, director of research for women’s mental health, Cleveland Clinic Neurological Institute, told this news organization.

“Our results are reassuring and suggest that second-generation antipsychotics, as a class, do not substantially increase the risk of major malformations,” Dr. Viguera said.

The findings were published online August 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Safety data scarce

Despite the increasing use of SGAs to treat a “spectrum of psychiatric disorders,” relatively little data are available on the reproductive safety of these agents, Dr. Viguera said.

The National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics (NPRAA) was established in 2008 to determine risk for major malformation among infants exposed to these medications during the first trimester, relative to a comparison group of unexposed infants of mothers with histories of psychiatric morbidity.

The NPRAA follows pregnant women (aged 18 to 45 years) with psychiatric illness who are exposed or unexposed to SGAs during pregnancy. Participants are recruited through nationwide provider referral, self-referral, and advertisement through the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health website.

The women are interviewed by phone at three timepoints: Enrollment, 7 months, and 3 months postpartum. Specific data collected are shown in the following table.

Demographic differences

Of the 1,906 women who enrolled as of April 2020, 1,311 (mean age, 32.6 years; 81.3% White) completed the study and were eligible for inclusion in the analysis.

Although the groups had a virtually identical mean age, fewer women in the exposure group were married compared with those in the non-exposure group (77% vs. 90%, respectively) and fewer had a college education (71.2% vs. 87.8%). There was also a higher percentage of first-trimester cigarette smokers in the exposure group (18.4% vs. 5.1%).

On the other hand, more women in the non-exposure group used alcohol than in the exposure group (28.6% vs. 21.4%, respectively).

The most frequent psychiatric disorder in the exposure group was bipolar disorder (63.9%), followed by major depression (12.9%), anxiety (5.8%), and schizophrenia (4.5%). Only 11.4% of women in the non-exposure group were diagnosed with bipolar disorder, whereas 34.1% were diagnosed with major depression, 31.3% with anxiety, and none with schizophrenia.

Notably, a large percentage of women in both groups had a history of postpartum depression and/or psychosis (41.4% and 35.5%, respectively).

The most frequently used SGAs in the exposure group were quetiapine (Seroquel), aripiprazole (Abilify), and lurasidone (Latuda).

Participants in the exposure group had a higher age at initial onset of primary psychiatric diagnosis and a lower proportion of lifetime illness compared with those in the non-exposure group.
 

Major clinical implication?

Among 640 live births in the exposure group, which included 17 twin pregnancies and 1 triplet pregnancy, 2.5% reported major malformations. Among 704 live births in the control group, which included 14 twin pregnancies, 1.99% reported major malformations.

The estimated OR for major malformations comparing exposed and unexposed infants was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.625-3.517).

The authors note that their findings were consistent with one of the largest studies to date, which included a nationwide sample of more than 1 million women. Its results showed that, among infants exposed to SGAs versus those who were not exposed, the estimated risk ratio after adjusting for psychiatric conditions was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.96-1.16).

Additionally, “a hallmark of a teratogen is that it tends to cause a specific type or pattern of malformations, and we found no preponderance of one single type of major malformation or specific pattern of malformations among the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Viguera said

“A major clinical implication of these findings is that for women with major mood and/or psychotic disorders, treatment with an atypical antipsychotic during pregnancy may be the most prudent clinical decision, much as continued treatment is recommended for pregnant women with other serious and chronic medical conditions, such as epilepsy,” she added.
 

The concept of ‘satisficing’

Commenting on the study, Vivien Burt, MD, PhD, founder and director/consultant of the Women’s Life Center at the Resnick University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Neuropsychiatric Hospital, called the findings “reassuring.”

The results “support the conclusion that in pregnant women with serious psychiatric illnesses, the use of SGAs is often a better option than avoiding these medications and exposing both the women and their offspring to the adverse consequences of maternal mental illness,” she said.

An accompanying editorial co-authored by Dr. Burt and colleague Sonya Rasminsky, MD, introduced the concept of “satisficing” – a term coined by Herbert Simon, a behavioral economist and Nobel Laureate. “Satisficing” is a “decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory (‘good enough’) outcome rather than a perfect one.”

The concept applies to decision-making beyond the field of economics “and is critical to how physicians help patients make decisions when they are faced with multiple treatment options,” said Dr. Burt, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at UCLA.

“The goal of ‘satisficing’ is to plan for the most satisfactory outcome, knowing that there are always unknowns, so in an uncertain world, clinicians should carefully help their patients make decisions that will allow them to achieve an outcome they can best live with,” she noted.

The investigators note that their findings may not be generalizable to the larger population of women taking SGAs, given that their participants were “overwhelmingly White, married, and well-educated women.”

They add that enrollment into the NPRAA registry is ongoing and larger sample sizes will “further narrow the confidence interval around the risk estimates and allow for adjustment of likely sources of confounding.”

The NPRAA is supported by Alkermes, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, SAGE Therapeutics, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Aurobindo Pharma. Past sponsors of the NPRAA are listed in the original paper. Dr. Viguera receives research support from the NPRAA, Alkermes Biopharmaceuticals, Aurobindo Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and SAGE Therapeutics and receives adviser/consulting fees from Up-to-Date. Dr. Burt has been a consultant/speaker for Sage Therapeutics. Dr. Rasminsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although many physicians endured pandemic-related income struggles in 2020, psychiatrists are doing fairly well with building their nest egg and paying down debt, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Wealth and Debt Report 2021.

RomoloTavani/ThinkStock

Surprisingly, despite COVID-19, psychiatrists’ income improved somewhat this year – from $268,000 in 2020 to $275,000 in 2021.

However, that still puts psychiatrists among the lower-paid specialists.

The highest-paying specialty is plastic surgery ($526,000), followed by orthopedics and orthopedic surgery ($511,000) and cardiology ($459,000), according to the overall Medscape Physician Wealth and Debt Report 2021. The report is based on responses from nearly 18,000 physicians in 29 specialties. All were surveyed between Oct. 6, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2021.

Psychiatrists’ overall wealth gained some ground over the past year, with 40% reporting a net worth of $1 million to $5 million this year – up from 38% last year. Just 6% of psychiatrists have a net worth north of $5 million, up slightly from 5% last year.
 

Keeping up with bills

“The rise in home prices is certainly a factor,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians based in St. Louis Park, Minn. He noted that the rise in the stock market also played a role, with the S&P 500 finishing the year up over 18%.

“I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth. They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on,” Dr. Greenwald said.

The percentage of psychiatrists with a net worth under $500,000 decreased from 37% last year to 32% this year. Psychiatry is still among the specialties reporting a high percentage of members with net worth below $500,000.

But gender matters. Earnings overall are higher for male than female psychiatrists, and that is reflected in net worth. Fewer female than male psychiatrists are worth more than $5 million (4% vs. 7%), and more female psychiatrists have a net worth of less than $500,000 (41% vs. 26%).

As in prior years, most psychiatrists are paying down a home mortgage on their primary residence (66%). Psychiatrists’ mortgage payments span a wide range, from less than $100,000 (23%) to more than $500,000 (15%). However, 27% report having no mortgage.

Mortgage aside, other top expenses or debts for psychiatrists are car loan payments (36%), paying off college and medical school debt (26%), credit card debt (25%), and medical expenses for self or loved ones (19%).

Other expenses include college tuition for children (16%), car lease payments (14%), mortgage on a second home (13%), private-school tuition for a child (12%), and child care (12%).

Despite some financially challenging months, the vast majority of psychiatrists (94%) kept up with paying their bills.

That’s better than what much of America experienced. According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey conducted last July, roughly 25% of adults missed a mortgage or rent payment because of COVID-related difficulties.

About half of psychiatrists pool their income to pay for bills. One-quarter do not have joint accounts with a spouse or partner.
 

Spender or saver?

About three-quarters of psychiatrists continued to spend as usual in 2020. About one-quarter took significant steps to lower their expenses, such as refinancing their home or moving to a less costly home.

In line with prior Medscape surveys, about half of psychiatrists have a general idea of how much they spend and on what, but they do not track or formalize it.

According to a recent survey by Intuit, only 35% of Americans say they know how much they spent last month. Viewed by age, 27% of millennials, 34% of Gen Xers, and 46% of baby boomers knew how much they spent.

Many psychiatrists have a higher-than-average number of credit cards; 42% have at least five. By comparison, the average American has four.

Savings was mixed for psychiatrists this past year; 61% put in the same amount or more each month into their 401(k) plans, but 33% put in less money, compared with last year.

For taxable savings accounts, half of psychiatrists put the same amount or more into after-tax accounts – but 22% put in less money, compared with last year. Another one-quarter did not use these savings accounts at all.

The percentage of psychiatrists who experienced losses because of practice problems rose from 6% to 9% in the past year. Much of that was likely because of COVID. However, about the same percentage reported no financial losses this year (76%), compared with last year (75%).

The vast majority of psychiatrists report living within or below their means; only 5% live above their means.

“There are certainly folks who believe that, as long as they pay off their credit card each month and contribute to their 401(k) enough to get their employer match, they’re doing okay,” Dr. Greenwald said.

However, “living within one’s means is having a 3-6 months’ emergency fund; saving at least 20% of gross income toward retirement; adequately funding 529 college accounts; and, for younger docs, paying down high-interest-rate debt at a good clip,” he added.

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

Although many physicians endured pandemic-related income struggles in 2020, psychiatrists are doing fairly well with building their nest egg and paying down debt, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Wealth and Debt Report 2021.

RomoloTavani/ThinkStock

Surprisingly, despite COVID-19, psychiatrists’ income improved somewhat this year – from $268,000 in 2020 to $275,000 in 2021.

However, that still puts psychiatrists among the lower-paid specialists.

The highest-paying specialty is plastic surgery ($526,000), followed by orthopedics and orthopedic surgery ($511,000) and cardiology ($459,000), according to the overall Medscape Physician Wealth and Debt Report 2021. The report is based on responses from nearly 18,000 physicians in 29 specialties. All were surveyed between Oct. 6, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2021.

Psychiatrists’ overall wealth gained some ground over the past year, with 40% reporting a net worth of $1 million to $5 million this year – up from 38% last year. Just 6% of psychiatrists have a net worth north of $5 million, up slightly from 5% last year.
 

Keeping up with bills

“The rise in home prices is certainly a factor,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians based in St. Louis Park, Minn. He noted that the rise in the stock market also played a role, with the S&P 500 finishing the year up over 18%.

“I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth. They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on,” Dr. Greenwald said.

The percentage of psychiatrists with a net worth under $500,000 decreased from 37% last year to 32% this year. Psychiatry is still among the specialties reporting a high percentage of members with net worth below $500,000.

But gender matters. Earnings overall are higher for male than female psychiatrists, and that is reflected in net worth. Fewer female than male psychiatrists are worth more than $5 million (4% vs. 7%), and more female psychiatrists have a net worth of less than $500,000 (41% vs. 26%).

As in prior years, most psychiatrists are paying down a home mortgage on their primary residence (66%). Psychiatrists’ mortgage payments span a wide range, from less than $100,000 (23%) to more than $500,000 (15%). However, 27% report having no mortgage.

Mortgage aside, other top expenses or debts for psychiatrists are car loan payments (36%), paying off college and medical school debt (26%), credit card debt (25%), and medical expenses for self or loved ones (19%).

Other expenses include college tuition for children (16%), car lease payments (14%), mortgage on a second home (13%), private-school tuition for a child (12%), and child care (12%).

Despite some financially challenging months, the vast majority of psychiatrists (94%) kept up with paying their bills.

That’s better than what much of America experienced. According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey conducted last July, roughly 25% of adults missed a mortgage or rent payment because of COVID-related difficulties.

About half of psychiatrists pool their income to pay for bills. One-quarter do not have joint accounts with a spouse or partner.
 

Spender or saver?

About three-quarters of psychiatrists continued to spend as usual in 2020. About one-quarter took significant steps to lower their expenses, such as refinancing their home or moving to a less costly home.

In line with prior Medscape surveys, about half of psychiatrists have a general idea of how much they spend and on what, but they do not track or formalize it.

According to a recent survey by Intuit, only 35% of Americans say they know how much they spent last month. Viewed by age, 27% of millennials, 34% of Gen Xers, and 46% of baby boomers knew how much they spent.

Many psychiatrists have a higher-than-average number of credit cards; 42% have at least five. By comparison, the average American has four.

Savings was mixed for psychiatrists this past year; 61% put in the same amount or more each month into their 401(k) plans, but 33% put in less money, compared with last year.

For taxable savings accounts, half of psychiatrists put the same amount or more into after-tax accounts – but 22% put in less money, compared with last year. Another one-quarter did not use these savings accounts at all.

The percentage of psychiatrists who experienced losses because of practice problems rose from 6% to 9% in the past year. Much of that was likely because of COVID. However, about the same percentage reported no financial losses this year (76%), compared with last year (75%).

The vast majority of psychiatrists report living within or below their means; only 5% live above their means.

“There are certainly folks who believe that, as long as they pay off their credit card each month and contribute to their 401(k) enough to get their employer match, they’re doing okay,” Dr. Greenwald said.

However, “living within one’s means is having a 3-6 months’ emergency fund; saving at least 20% of gross income toward retirement; adequately funding 529 college accounts; and, for younger docs, paying down high-interest-rate debt at a good clip,” he added.

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

Although many physicians endured pandemic-related income struggles in 2020, psychiatrists are doing fairly well with building their nest egg and paying down debt, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Wealth and Debt Report 2021.

RomoloTavani/ThinkStock

Surprisingly, despite COVID-19, psychiatrists’ income improved somewhat this year – from $268,000 in 2020 to $275,000 in 2021.

However, that still puts psychiatrists among the lower-paid specialists.

The highest-paying specialty is plastic surgery ($526,000), followed by orthopedics and orthopedic surgery ($511,000) and cardiology ($459,000), according to the overall Medscape Physician Wealth and Debt Report 2021. The report is based on responses from nearly 18,000 physicians in 29 specialties. All were surveyed between Oct. 6, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2021.

Psychiatrists’ overall wealth gained some ground over the past year, with 40% reporting a net worth of $1 million to $5 million this year – up from 38% last year. Just 6% of psychiatrists have a net worth north of $5 million, up slightly from 5% last year.
 

Keeping up with bills

“The rise in home prices is certainly a factor,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians based in St. Louis Park, Minn. He noted that the rise in the stock market also played a role, with the S&P 500 finishing the year up over 18%.

“I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth. They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on,” Dr. Greenwald said.

The percentage of psychiatrists with a net worth under $500,000 decreased from 37% last year to 32% this year. Psychiatry is still among the specialties reporting a high percentage of members with net worth below $500,000.

But gender matters. Earnings overall are higher for male than female psychiatrists, and that is reflected in net worth. Fewer female than male psychiatrists are worth more than $5 million (4% vs. 7%), and more female psychiatrists have a net worth of less than $500,000 (41% vs. 26%).

As in prior years, most psychiatrists are paying down a home mortgage on their primary residence (66%). Psychiatrists’ mortgage payments span a wide range, from less than $100,000 (23%) to more than $500,000 (15%). However, 27% report having no mortgage.

Mortgage aside, other top expenses or debts for psychiatrists are car loan payments (36%), paying off college and medical school debt (26%), credit card debt (25%), and medical expenses for self or loved ones (19%).

Other expenses include college tuition for children (16%), car lease payments (14%), mortgage on a second home (13%), private-school tuition for a child (12%), and child care (12%).

Despite some financially challenging months, the vast majority of psychiatrists (94%) kept up with paying their bills.

That’s better than what much of America experienced. According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey conducted last July, roughly 25% of adults missed a mortgage or rent payment because of COVID-related difficulties.

About half of psychiatrists pool their income to pay for bills. One-quarter do not have joint accounts with a spouse or partner.
 

Spender or saver?

About three-quarters of psychiatrists continued to spend as usual in 2020. About one-quarter took significant steps to lower their expenses, such as refinancing their home or moving to a less costly home.

In line with prior Medscape surveys, about half of psychiatrists have a general idea of how much they spend and on what, but they do not track or formalize it.

According to a recent survey by Intuit, only 35% of Americans say they know how much they spent last month. Viewed by age, 27% of millennials, 34% of Gen Xers, and 46% of baby boomers knew how much they spent.

Many psychiatrists have a higher-than-average number of credit cards; 42% have at least five. By comparison, the average American has four.

Savings was mixed for psychiatrists this past year; 61% put in the same amount or more each month into their 401(k) plans, but 33% put in less money, compared with last year.

For taxable savings accounts, half of psychiatrists put the same amount or more into after-tax accounts – but 22% put in less money, compared with last year. Another one-quarter did not use these savings accounts at all.

The percentage of psychiatrists who experienced losses because of practice problems rose from 6% to 9% in the past year. Much of that was likely because of COVID. However, about the same percentage reported no financial losses this year (76%), compared with last year (75%).

The vast majority of psychiatrists report living within or below their means; only 5% live above their means.

“There are certainly folks who believe that, as long as they pay off their credit card each month and contribute to their 401(k) enough to get their employer match, they’re doing okay,” Dr. Greenwald said.

However, “living within one’s means is having a 3-6 months’ emergency fund; saving at least 20% of gross income toward retirement; adequately funding 529 college accounts; and, for younger docs, paying down high-interest-rate debt at a good clip,” he added.

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