Clinical Psychiatry News

Subtle differences in brain morphometric features present in adolescence were associated with the subsequent development of psychosis in what is believed to be the largest neuroimaging investigation to date involving people at clinical high risk (CHR).

Investigators found widespread lower cortical thickness (CT) in individuals at CHR, consistent with previously reported CT differences in individuals with an established psychotic disorder.

“This is the first study to definitively show that there are subtle, widespread structural brain differences in high-risk youth before they develop psychosis,” study investigator Maria Jalbrzikowski, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The findings also suggest that there are developmental periods during which certain brain abnormalities may be more apparent, “highlighting the need to consider developmental period when developing objective, biological risk factors for early intervention in psychosis,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said.

The study was published online May 5 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

‘Sobering’ results

The findings are based on pooled structural MRI scans from 3,169 individuals recruited at 31 international sites participating in the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Working Group.

Forty-five percent of the participants were female; the mean age was 21 years (range, 9.5 to 39.9 years).

The cohort included 1,792 individuals at CHR for psychosis and 1,377 healthy control persons. Using longitudinal clinical information, the researchers identified 253 individuals at CHR who went on to develop a psychotic disorder (CHR-PS+) and 1,234 at CHR who did not develop a psychotic disorder (CHR-PS-). For the remaining 305 individuals at CHR, follow-up data were unavailable.

Compared with healthy control persons, individuals at CHR had widespread lower CT measures but not lower surface area or subcortical volume. Lower CT measures in the fusiform, superior temporal, and paracentral regions were associated with conversion to psychosis.

The pattern of differences in cortical thickness in those in the CHR-PS+ group mirrored patterns seen in people with schizophrenia and in people with 22q11.2 microdeletion syndrome who developed a psychotic disorder.

The researchers note that although all individuals experience cortical thinning as they move into adulthood, in their study, cortical thinning was already present in participants aged 12 to 16 years who developed psychosis.

“We don’t yet know exactly what this means, but adolescence is a critical time in a child’s life – it’s a time of opportunity to take risks and explore, but also a period of vulnerability,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said in a news release.

“We could be seeing the result of something that happened even earlier in brain development but only begins to influence behavior during this developmental stage,” she noted.

This analysis represents the largest-ever pooling of brain scans in children and young adults who were determined by psychiatric assessment to be at high risk of developing psychosis.

“These results were, in a sense, sobering. On the one hand, our dataset includes 600% more high-risk youth who developed psychosis than any existing study, allowing us to see statistically significant results in brain structure.”

“But the variance between whether or not a high-risk youth develops psychosis is so small that it would be impossible to see a difference at the individual level,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said.

More work is needed in order for the findings to be translated into clinical care, she added.
 

Definitive findings

Commenting on the findings for an interview, Russell Margolis, MD, clinical director, Johns Hopkins Schizophrenia Center, said that “it’s not so much that the findings are novel but rather that they’re fairly definitive in that this is by far the largest study of its kind looking at this particular question, and that gives it power. The problem with imaging studies has often been inconsistent results from study to study because of small sample size.”

“In order to see these differences in a robust way, you need a large sample size, meaning that for any one individual, this kind of structural imaging is not going to add much to the prediction of whether someone will eventually develop a schizophrenia-like illness,” said Dr. Margolis, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

From a clinical standpoint, Dr. Margolis said the findings probably won’t change practice, but they have implications for understanding the neurobiology of psychotic disorders.

“The predominant hypothesis in the field is that early developmental abnormalities are the root cause of schizophrenia and related disorders, and this study is consistent with that, particularly the age-related differences, which are suggestive of neurodevelopmental abnormalities preceding the development of overt symptoms, which many other findings have also suggested,” Dr. Margolis said.

“Abnormalities in cortical thickness could be from a number of different neurobiological processes, and research into those processes are worth investigating,” he added.

The researchers received support from numerous funders, all of which are listed in the original article, along with author disclosures for ENIGMA working group members. Dr. Margolis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Subtle differences in brain morphometric features present in adolescence were associated with the subsequent development of psychosis in what is believed to be the largest neuroimaging investigation to date involving people at clinical high risk (CHR).

Investigators found widespread lower cortical thickness (CT) in individuals at CHR, consistent with previously reported CT differences in individuals with an established psychotic disorder.

“This is the first study to definitively show that there are subtle, widespread structural brain differences in high-risk youth before they develop psychosis,” study investigator Maria Jalbrzikowski, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The findings also suggest that there are developmental periods during which certain brain abnormalities may be more apparent, “highlighting the need to consider developmental period when developing objective, biological risk factors for early intervention in psychosis,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said.

The study was published online May 5 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

‘Sobering’ results

The findings are based on pooled structural MRI scans from 3,169 individuals recruited at 31 international sites participating in the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Working Group.

Forty-five percent of the participants were female; the mean age was 21 years (range, 9.5 to 39.9 years).

The cohort included 1,792 individuals at CHR for psychosis and 1,377 healthy control persons. Using longitudinal clinical information, the researchers identified 253 individuals at CHR who went on to develop a psychotic disorder (CHR-PS+) and 1,234 at CHR who did not develop a psychotic disorder (CHR-PS-). For the remaining 305 individuals at CHR, follow-up data were unavailable.

Compared with healthy control persons, individuals at CHR had widespread lower CT measures but not lower surface area or subcortical volume. Lower CT measures in the fusiform, superior temporal, and paracentral regions were associated with conversion to psychosis.

The pattern of differences in cortical thickness in those in the CHR-PS+ group mirrored patterns seen in people with schizophrenia and in people with 22q11.2 microdeletion syndrome who developed a psychotic disorder.

The researchers note that although all individuals experience cortical thinning as they move into adulthood, in their study, cortical thinning was already present in participants aged 12 to 16 years who developed psychosis.

“We don’t yet know exactly what this means, but adolescence is a critical time in a child’s life – it’s a time of opportunity to take risks and explore, but also a period of vulnerability,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said in a news release.

“We could be seeing the result of something that happened even earlier in brain development but only begins to influence behavior during this developmental stage,” she noted.

This analysis represents the largest-ever pooling of brain scans in children and young adults who were determined by psychiatric assessment to be at high risk of developing psychosis.

“These results were, in a sense, sobering. On the one hand, our dataset includes 600% more high-risk youth who developed psychosis than any existing study, allowing us to see statistically significant results in brain structure.”

“But the variance between whether or not a high-risk youth develops psychosis is so small that it would be impossible to see a difference at the individual level,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said.

More work is needed in order for the findings to be translated into clinical care, she added.
 

Definitive findings

Commenting on the findings for an interview, Russell Margolis, MD, clinical director, Johns Hopkins Schizophrenia Center, said that “it’s not so much that the findings are novel but rather that they’re fairly definitive in that this is by far the largest study of its kind looking at this particular question, and that gives it power. The problem with imaging studies has often been inconsistent results from study to study because of small sample size.”

“In order to see these differences in a robust way, you need a large sample size, meaning that for any one individual, this kind of structural imaging is not going to add much to the prediction of whether someone will eventually develop a schizophrenia-like illness,” said Dr. Margolis, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

From a clinical standpoint, Dr. Margolis said the findings probably won’t change practice, but they have implications for understanding the neurobiology of psychotic disorders.

“The predominant hypothesis in the field is that early developmental abnormalities are the root cause of schizophrenia and related disorders, and this study is consistent with that, particularly the age-related differences, which are suggestive of neurodevelopmental abnormalities preceding the development of overt symptoms, which many other findings have also suggested,” Dr. Margolis said.

“Abnormalities in cortical thickness could be from a number of different neurobiological processes, and research into those processes are worth investigating,” he added.

The researchers received support from numerous funders, all of which are listed in the original article, along with author disclosures for ENIGMA working group members. Dr. Margolis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Subtle differences in brain morphometric features present in adolescence were associated with the subsequent development of psychosis in what is believed to be the largest neuroimaging investigation to date involving people at clinical high risk (CHR).

Investigators found widespread lower cortical thickness (CT) in individuals at CHR, consistent with previously reported CT differences in individuals with an established psychotic disorder.

“This is the first study to definitively show that there are subtle, widespread structural brain differences in high-risk youth before they develop psychosis,” study investigator Maria Jalbrzikowski, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The findings also suggest that there are developmental periods during which certain brain abnormalities may be more apparent, “highlighting the need to consider developmental period when developing objective, biological risk factors for early intervention in psychosis,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said.

The study was published online May 5 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

‘Sobering’ results

The findings are based on pooled structural MRI scans from 3,169 individuals recruited at 31 international sites participating in the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Working Group.

Forty-five percent of the participants were female; the mean age was 21 years (range, 9.5 to 39.9 years).

The cohort included 1,792 individuals at CHR for psychosis and 1,377 healthy control persons. Using longitudinal clinical information, the researchers identified 253 individuals at CHR who went on to develop a psychotic disorder (CHR-PS+) and 1,234 at CHR who did not develop a psychotic disorder (CHR-PS-). For the remaining 305 individuals at CHR, follow-up data were unavailable.

Compared with healthy control persons, individuals at CHR had widespread lower CT measures but not lower surface area or subcortical volume. Lower CT measures in the fusiform, superior temporal, and paracentral regions were associated with conversion to psychosis.

The pattern of differences in cortical thickness in those in the CHR-PS+ group mirrored patterns seen in people with schizophrenia and in people with 22q11.2 microdeletion syndrome who developed a psychotic disorder.

The researchers note that although all individuals experience cortical thinning as they move into adulthood, in their study, cortical thinning was already present in participants aged 12 to 16 years who developed psychosis.

“We don’t yet know exactly what this means, but adolescence is a critical time in a child’s life – it’s a time of opportunity to take risks and explore, but also a period of vulnerability,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said in a news release.

“We could be seeing the result of something that happened even earlier in brain development but only begins to influence behavior during this developmental stage,” she noted.

This analysis represents the largest-ever pooling of brain scans in children and young adults who were determined by psychiatric assessment to be at high risk of developing psychosis.

“These results were, in a sense, sobering. On the one hand, our dataset includes 600% more high-risk youth who developed psychosis than any existing study, allowing us to see statistically significant results in brain structure.”

“But the variance between whether or not a high-risk youth develops psychosis is so small that it would be impossible to see a difference at the individual level,” Dr. Jalbrzikowski said.

More work is needed in order for the findings to be translated into clinical care, she added.
 

Definitive findings

Commenting on the findings for an interview, Russell Margolis, MD, clinical director, Johns Hopkins Schizophrenia Center, said that “it’s not so much that the findings are novel but rather that they’re fairly definitive in that this is by far the largest study of its kind looking at this particular question, and that gives it power. The problem with imaging studies has often been inconsistent results from study to study because of small sample size.”

“In order to see these differences in a robust way, you need a large sample size, meaning that for any one individual, this kind of structural imaging is not going to add much to the prediction of whether someone will eventually develop a schizophrenia-like illness,” said Dr. Margolis, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

From a clinical standpoint, Dr. Margolis said the findings probably won’t change practice, but they have implications for understanding the neurobiology of psychotic disorders.

“The predominant hypothesis in the field is that early developmental abnormalities are the root cause of schizophrenia and related disorders, and this study is consistent with that, particularly the age-related differences, which are suggestive of neurodevelopmental abnormalities preceding the development of overt symptoms, which many other findings have also suggested,” Dr. Margolis said.

“Abnormalities in cortical thickness could be from a number of different neurobiological processes, and research into those processes are worth investigating,” he added.

The researchers received support from numerous funders, all of which are listed in the original article, along with author disclosures for ENIGMA working group members. Dr. Margolis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.

“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.

“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.

The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Striking’ results

Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.

They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).

The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.

About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.

Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.

For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
 

Lightening the load

Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.

“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release. 

Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.

Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.

The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

“The results imply that clinicians who treat patients with schizophrenia may be able to improve cognitive health by reducing cumulative anticholinergic medication burden if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.

“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”

“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.

“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.

“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.

“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.

The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Striking’ results

Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.

They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).

The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.

About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.

Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.

For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
 

Lightening the load

Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.

“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release. 

Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.

Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.

The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

“The results imply that clinicians who treat patients with schizophrenia may be able to improve cognitive health by reducing cumulative anticholinergic medication burden if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.

“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”

“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.

“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.

“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.

“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.

The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Striking’ results

Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.

They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).

The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.

About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.

Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.

For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
 

Lightening the load

Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.

“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release. 

Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.

Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.

The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

“The results imply that clinicians who treat patients with schizophrenia may be able to improve cognitive health by reducing cumulative anticholinergic medication burden if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.

“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”

“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.

“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.

Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.

The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.

“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.

The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
 

Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response

The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.

Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.  

Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.

He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”

The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.

“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
 

Brain signals that control portion size 

Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.

The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.

They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.

There were four main findings:

• DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
• Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
• Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
• Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.

“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

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

Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.

Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.

The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.

“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.

The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
 

Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response

The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.

Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.  

Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.

He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”

The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.

“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
 

Brain signals that control portion size 

Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.

The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.

They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.

There were four main findings:

• DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
• Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
• Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
• Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.

“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

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

Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.

Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.

The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.

“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.

The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
 

Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response

The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.

Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.  

Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.

He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”

The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.

“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
 

Brain signals that control portion size 

Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.

The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.

They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.

There were four main findings:

• DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
• Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
• Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
• Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.

“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

Amid significant controversy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Biogen, Eisai) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug.

In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.

In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
 

Rocky road

The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.

As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.

However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a  new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.

Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.

However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.

“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.

Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.

On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
 

Alzheimer association weighs in

The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.

Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.

“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.

Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.

“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.

“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.

Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.

In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.

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

Amid significant controversy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Biogen, Eisai) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug.

In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.

In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
 

Rocky road

The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.

As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.

However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a  new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.

Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.

However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.

“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.

Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.

On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
 

Alzheimer association weighs in

The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.

Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.

“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.

Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.

“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.

“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.

Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.

In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.

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

Amid significant controversy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Biogen, Eisai) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug.

In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.

In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
 

Rocky road

The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.

As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.

However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a  new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.

Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.

However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.

“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.

Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.

On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
 

Alzheimer association weighs in

The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.

Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.

“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.

Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.

“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.

“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.

Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.

In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.

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

On May 25, Jena Hausmann, CEO of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, declared a state of emergency in youth mental health in response to an astronomical increase in pediatric mental health cases, including suicide, which has overwhelmed the institution.

From April 2019 to April 2021, the demand for pediatric behavioral health treatment at the hospital system increased by 90%. In Colorado, suicide is now the number one cause of death among youth and occurs in children as young as 10 years of age.

“Now we are seeing our pediatric emergency departments and our inpatient units overrun with kids attempting suicide and suffering from other forms of major mental health illness,” Dr. Hausmann said in a press release.

“We had to draw attention to what we’re seeing in our hospital and our community on an everyday basis – an unprecedented number of suicidal children who need acute treatment for behavioral health problems – and when I say ‘unprecedented,’ I’m serious – I’ve been in pediatrics for two decades and have never seen anything like this before,” David Brumbaugh, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist and chief medical officer for Children’s Colorado, told this news organization.

Christine Crawford, MD, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, stated in an interview that she “commends the CEO of the hospital for making this announcement, because it is outrageous to see what is happening with more and more children with significant psychiatric symptoms who are not getting adequate care.”

Jenna Glover, PhD, child psychologist and director of psychology training at Children’s Hospital, said that during the past decade, there has been a steady increase in depression, anxiety, and suicide among youth in Colorado. Suicide, she added, is now the number one cause of death in youth, “so we were already in a state of crisis.” She added that COVID-19 was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

“In January to April of this year, behavioral health ED visits to Children’s Hospital were 72% higher than they were 2 years ago at this time,” she said. “Colorado Springs had a 145% increase for ED behavioral health visits during the first 4 months of 2021, compared to the first 4 months of 2020.”
 

COVID’s impact

Other problems that have been “skyrocketing” in youth are self-harm, substance use, and eating disorders. Younger children are experiencing an increase in behavioral problems, including developmental regression, such as tantrums, and problems with sleeping, toileting, and eating, Dr. Glover noted.

The youth mental health crisis has mushroomed, although social distancing requirements are now beginning to ease and we are in the “home stretch of the pandemic,” Dr. Brumbaugh said.

One possible reason “is that we took kids out of their normal routines, social circles, friendships, etc., for 12 months, and that was the limit of their physiological or mental resistance, and they got to the end of their rope,” he speculated.

Dr. Glover said, “Kids are burned out, and although they’re asking to return to their life, they don’t feel they have the resources. They feel so behind; they don’t know how to catch up.”

Dr. Brumbaugh said that there are not enough child psychiatrists to provide outpatient services or enough inpatient beds for children in crisis.

“This is an unacceptable situation. We would never allow a child with leukemia or appendicitis to go several weeks without treatment,” he said.

Community donors have come forward, enabling an anticipated 50% increase in Children’s Hospital’s mental health outpatient, inpatient, and day services by March 2022.

“On a hospital level, we are continuing to do things to expand access to care, like opening units that provide different levels of care for patients with psychiatric problems, as well as expanding into areas that are more rural,” Dr. Glover said.

However, the “blueprint is not in action yet, and a lot of money still needs to be allocated. A workforce has to be created, because there are not enough clinicians to fill these roles,” she added.
 

Chronic underfunding

Dr. Brumbaugh said Colorado has always had a “relatively underfunded behavioral health system for kids.” A 2021 report by Mental Health America ranks Colorado among the lowest states in the country in terms of overall pediatric behavioral health funding.

However, Dr. Glover noted that Colorado is “not exceptional.” The increased vulnerability to youth mental illness and suicide is characteristic of other mountain states, which have larger rural areas, less access to care, and increased access to guns, she said.

Mass shootings may have amped up stress levels. “For some kids, this is happening in their schools or towns, and they feel traumatized and unsafe,” Dr. Glover added.

Dr. Crawford, who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Boston University, also pointed out that the mental health crisis in youth is not unique to Colorado.

“Throughout the country, we’ve seen these colliding pandemics – inadequate mental health resources for children and COVID-19, which exacerbated the existing mental health crisis,” she said.

“The pandemic led to an increase in telehealth services, making individual and group psychotherapy available to kids in areas that never had access to these before, which is a ‘silver lining’ of the pandemic,” Dr. Glover said.

Dr. Crawford is “encouraged that we are having more conversations about pediatric mental health, because the pandemic amplified what was already going on and made it impossible to ignore.”
 

Screening is essential

Screening for mental health problems should be at the top of the mind of pediatricians and other clinicians who work with children, Dr. Glover said.

“Pediatricians are in the best place to catch potentially suicidal kids, because they are more likely to see these kids than therapists,” she noted.

She suggested using a rapid screen for depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) modified for adolescents. Parents can also fill out a PHQ-9 for younger children and even for themselves.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality affect the whole family, so screening for these conditions in adults will benefit the children too,” she said. Teachers should also “be aware of what depression and anxiety symptoms look like in kids, because sometimes they can manifest more as irritability,” Dr. Glover added.

Policymakers and insurers need to prioritize pediatric mental health when determining allocation of health care, said Dr. Crawford.

“Financial incentives should be provided for hospitals to want to reserve beds for psychiatric patients, and in the outpatient setting, we also need to look at the payment structure of psychiatric visits,” she added.

Many psychiatrists do not want to accept insurance because of the increased bureaucracy and low reimbursement rates of insurance companies, and families cannot afford to pay out of pocket, “so we really need to look at the insurance issue at a policy level,” Dr. Crawford said.

Dr. Brumbaugh, Dr. Glover, and Dr. Crawford have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

On May 25, Jena Hausmann, CEO of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, declared a state of emergency in youth mental health in response to an astronomical increase in pediatric mental health cases, including suicide, which has overwhelmed the institution.

From April 2019 to April 2021, the demand for pediatric behavioral health treatment at the hospital system increased by 90%. In Colorado, suicide is now the number one cause of death among youth and occurs in children as young as 10 years of age.

“Now we are seeing our pediatric emergency departments and our inpatient units overrun with kids attempting suicide and suffering from other forms of major mental health illness,” Dr. Hausmann said in a press release.

“We had to draw attention to what we’re seeing in our hospital and our community on an everyday basis – an unprecedented number of suicidal children who need acute treatment for behavioral health problems – and when I say ‘unprecedented,’ I’m serious – I’ve been in pediatrics for two decades and have never seen anything like this before,” David Brumbaugh, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist and chief medical officer for Children’s Colorado, told this news organization.

Christine Crawford, MD, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, stated in an interview that she “commends the CEO of the hospital for making this announcement, because it is outrageous to see what is happening with more and more children with significant psychiatric symptoms who are not getting adequate care.”

Jenna Glover, PhD, child psychologist and director of psychology training at Children’s Hospital, said that during the past decade, there has been a steady increase in depression, anxiety, and suicide among youth in Colorado. Suicide, she added, is now the number one cause of death in youth, “so we were already in a state of crisis.” She added that COVID-19 was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

“In January to April of this year, behavioral health ED visits to Children’s Hospital were 72% higher than they were 2 years ago at this time,” she said. “Colorado Springs had a 145% increase for ED behavioral health visits during the first 4 months of 2021, compared to the first 4 months of 2020.”
 

COVID’s impact

Other problems that have been “skyrocketing” in youth are self-harm, substance use, and eating disorders. Younger children are experiencing an increase in behavioral problems, including developmental regression, such as tantrums, and problems with sleeping, toileting, and eating, Dr. Glover noted.

The youth mental health crisis has mushroomed, although social distancing requirements are now beginning to ease and we are in the “home stretch of the pandemic,” Dr. Brumbaugh said.

One possible reason “is that we took kids out of their normal routines, social circles, friendships, etc., for 12 months, and that was the limit of their physiological or mental resistance, and they got to the end of their rope,” he speculated.

Dr. Glover said, “Kids are burned out, and although they’re asking to return to their life, they don’t feel they have the resources. They feel so behind; they don’t know how to catch up.”

Dr. Brumbaugh said that there are not enough child psychiatrists to provide outpatient services or enough inpatient beds for children in crisis.

“This is an unacceptable situation. We would never allow a child with leukemia or appendicitis to go several weeks without treatment,” he said.

Community donors have come forward, enabling an anticipated 50% increase in Children’s Hospital’s mental health outpatient, inpatient, and day services by March 2022.

“On a hospital level, we are continuing to do things to expand access to care, like opening units that provide different levels of care for patients with psychiatric problems, as well as expanding into areas that are more rural,” Dr. Glover said.

However, the “blueprint is not in action yet, and a lot of money still needs to be allocated. A workforce has to be created, because there are not enough clinicians to fill these roles,” she added.
 

Chronic underfunding

Dr. Brumbaugh said Colorado has always had a “relatively underfunded behavioral health system for kids.” A 2021 report by Mental Health America ranks Colorado among the lowest states in the country in terms of overall pediatric behavioral health funding.

However, Dr. Glover noted that Colorado is “not exceptional.” The increased vulnerability to youth mental illness and suicide is characteristic of other mountain states, which have larger rural areas, less access to care, and increased access to guns, she said.

Mass shootings may have amped up stress levels. “For some kids, this is happening in their schools or towns, and they feel traumatized and unsafe,” Dr. Glover added.

Dr. Crawford, who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Boston University, also pointed out that the mental health crisis in youth is not unique to Colorado.

“Throughout the country, we’ve seen these colliding pandemics – inadequate mental health resources for children and COVID-19, which exacerbated the existing mental health crisis,” she said.

“The pandemic led to an increase in telehealth services, making individual and group psychotherapy available to kids in areas that never had access to these before, which is a ‘silver lining’ of the pandemic,” Dr. Glover said.

Dr. Crawford is “encouraged that we are having more conversations about pediatric mental health, because the pandemic amplified what was already going on and made it impossible to ignore.”
 

Screening is essential

Screening for mental health problems should be at the top of the mind of pediatricians and other clinicians who work with children, Dr. Glover said.

“Pediatricians are in the best place to catch potentially suicidal kids, because they are more likely to see these kids than therapists,” she noted.

She suggested using a rapid screen for depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) modified for adolescents. Parents can also fill out a PHQ-9 for younger children and even for themselves.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality affect the whole family, so screening for these conditions in adults will benefit the children too,” she said. Teachers should also “be aware of what depression and anxiety symptoms look like in kids, because sometimes they can manifest more as irritability,” Dr. Glover added.

Policymakers and insurers need to prioritize pediatric mental health when determining allocation of health care, said Dr. Crawford.

“Financial incentives should be provided for hospitals to want to reserve beds for psychiatric patients, and in the outpatient setting, we also need to look at the payment structure of psychiatric visits,” she added.

Many psychiatrists do not want to accept insurance because of the increased bureaucracy and low reimbursement rates of insurance companies, and families cannot afford to pay out of pocket, “so we really need to look at the insurance issue at a policy level,” Dr. Crawford said.

Dr. Brumbaugh, Dr. Glover, and Dr. Crawford have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

On May 25, Jena Hausmann, CEO of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, declared a state of emergency in youth mental health in response to an astronomical increase in pediatric mental health cases, including suicide, which has overwhelmed the institution.

From April 2019 to April 2021, the demand for pediatric behavioral health treatment at the hospital system increased by 90%. In Colorado, suicide is now the number one cause of death among youth and occurs in children as young as 10 years of age.

“Now we are seeing our pediatric emergency departments and our inpatient units overrun with kids attempting suicide and suffering from other forms of major mental health illness,” Dr. Hausmann said in a press release.

“We had to draw attention to what we’re seeing in our hospital and our community on an everyday basis – an unprecedented number of suicidal children who need acute treatment for behavioral health problems – and when I say ‘unprecedented,’ I’m serious – I’ve been in pediatrics for two decades and have never seen anything like this before,” David Brumbaugh, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist and chief medical officer for Children’s Colorado, told this news organization.

Christine Crawford, MD, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, stated in an interview that she “commends the CEO of the hospital for making this announcement, because it is outrageous to see what is happening with more and more children with significant psychiatric symptoms who are not getting adequate care.”

Jenna Glover, PhD, child psychologist and director of psychology training at Children’s Hospital, said that during the past decade, there has been a steady increase in depression, anxiety, and suicide among youth in Colorado. Suicide, she added, is now the number one cause of death in youth, “so we were already in a state of crisis.” She added that COVID-19 was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

“In January to April of this year, behavioral health ED visits to Children’s Hospital were 72% higher than they were 2 years ago at this time,” she said. “Colorado Springs had a 145% increase for ED behavioral health visits during the first 4 months of 2021, compared to the first 4 months of 2020.”
 

COVID’s impact

Other problems that have been “skyrocketing” in youth are self-harm, substance use, and eating disorders. Younger children are experiencing an increase in behavioral problems, including developmental regression, such as tantrums, and problems with sleeping, toileting, and eating, Dr. Glover noted.

The youth mental health crisis has mushroomed, although social distancing requirements are now beginning to ease and we are in the “home stretch of the pandemic,” Dr. Brumbaugh said.

One possible reason “is that we took kids out of their normal routines, social circles, friendships, etc., for 12 months, and that was the limit of their physiological or mental resistance, and they got to the end of their rope,” he speculated.

Dr. Glover said, “Kids are burned out, and although they’re asking to return to their life, they don’t feel they have the resources. They feel so behind; they don’t know how to catch up.”

Dr. Brumbaugh said that there are not enough child psychiatrists to provide outpatient services or enough inpatient beds for children in crisis.

“This is an unacceptable situation. We would never allow a child with leukemia or appendicitis to go several weeks without treatment,” he said.

Community donors have come forward, enabling an anticipated 50% increase in Children’s Hospital’s mental health outpatient, inpatient, and day services by March 2022.

“On a hospital level, we are continuing to do things to expand access to care, like opening units that provide different levels of care for patients with psychiatric problems, as well as expanding into areas that are more rural,” Dr. Glover said.

However, the “blueprint is not in action yet, and a lot of money still needs to be allocated. A workforce has to be created, because there are not enough clinicians to fill these roles,” she added.
 

Chronic underfunding

Dr. Brumbaugh said Colorado has always had a “relatively underfunded behavioral health system for kids.” A 2021 report by Mental Health America ranks Colorado among the lowest states in the country in terms of overall pediatric behavioral health funding.

However, Dr. Glover noted that Colorado is “not exceptional.” The increased vulnerability to youth mental illness and suicide is characteristic of other mountain states, which have larger rural areas, less access to care, and increased access to guns, she said.

Mass shootings may have amped up stress levels. “For some kids, this is happening in their schools or towns, and they feel traumatized and unsafe,” Dr. Glover added.

Dr. Crawford, who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Boston University, also pointed out that the mental health crisis in youth is not unique to Colorado.

“Throughout the country, we’ve seen these colliding pandemics – inadequate mental health resources for children and COVID-19, which exacerbated the existing mental health crisis,” she said.

“The pandemic led to an increase in telehealth services, making individual and group psychotherapy available to kids in areas that never had access to these before, which is a ‘silver lining’ of the pandemic,” Dr. Glover said.

Dr. Crawford is “encouraged that we are having more conversations about pediatric mental health, because the pandemic amplified what was already going on and made it impossible to ignore.”
 

Screening is essential

Screening for mental health problems should be at the top of the mind of pediatricians and other clinicians who work with children, Dr. Glover said.

“Pediatricians are in the best place to catch potentially suicidal kids, because they are more likely to see these kids than therapists,” she noted.

She suggested using a rapid screen for depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) modified for adolescents. Parents can also fill out a PHQ-9 for younger children and even for themselves.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality affect the whole family, so screening for these conditions in adults will benefit the children too,” she said. Teachers should also “be aware of what depression and anxiety symptoms look like in kids, because sometimes they can manifest more as irritability,” Dr. Glover added.

Policymakers and insurers need to prioritize pediatric mental health when determining allocation of health care, said Dr. Crawford.

“Financial incentives should be provided for hospitals to want to reserve beds for psychiatric patients, and in the outpatient setting, we also need to look at the payment structure of psychiatric visits,” she added.

Many psychiatrists do not want to accept insurance because of the increased bureaucracy and low reimbursement rates of insurance companies, and families cannot afford to pay out of pocket, “so we really need to look at the insurance issue at a policy level,” Dr. Crawford said.

Dr. Brumbaugh, Dr. Glover, and Dr. Crawford have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel, ultra–long-acting oral formulation of the antipsychotic risperidone (Risperdal) only needs to be taken once weekly and appears to be safe and effective, results of a new phase 2 study suggest.

The new formulation, LYN-005 (Lyndra Therapeutics), quickly reached therapeutic levels in patients, provided sustained exposure to risperidone active moiety over 7 days, and reduced peak drug exposure.

“This novel formulation has the potential to improve treatment adherence and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder,” study investigator David Walling, PhD, chief clinical officer for the Collaborative NeuroScience Network, Long Beach, Calif., said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Adherence is key

About 50% of patients don’t take medications as prescribed, creating a significant relapse risk, Dr. Walling noted.

“Here we have the possibility of having a once-weekly oral medication, which means patients don’t have to struggle with the issue of taking the medication daily. Right now, all we have on the market for long-acting medications for schizophrenia are injectables, where the patient has to go get a shot every month or every 2 weeks in order to have the medication in their system for a longer period of time,” he added.

The study included 32 clinically stable patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Patients received immediate-release (IR) risperidone at 2 mg or 4 mg, based on their current antipsychotic dose, for 13 days. 

They were then randomly assigned 3:1 to receive either IR risperidone-matched placebo and LYN-005 at 14 mg or 28 mg risperidone (12 patients per group), or to LYN-005 matched placebo and IR risperidone, 2 mg or 4 mg, (4 patients per group) for 3 weeks.

LYN-05 was administered once weekly for a total of three doses. IR risperidone was administered once daily.

The study’s primary endpoints were pharmacokinetics after LYN-005 and IR risperidone and the incidence of adverse events.

Following LYN-005 administration, systemic exposure to risperidone active moiety (risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone combined) increased with the increasing dose. Peak concentration occurred within the first 3 days of dosing and peak exposures from LYN-005 were lower than with IR risperidone.

“Steady state was achieved around day 15. It didn’t take 3 weeks of dosing for patients to achieve steady state. We achieved that around day 15,” Dr. Walling said.

LYN-005 was well tolerated in the 85% of study participants who received all three doses.

Adverse events occurred in 18 (75%) patients who received LYN-005. Of these, 10 were with the 14-mg dose, and 8 with the 28-mg dose.

The most common AEs were gastrointestinal, which occurred in 13 (54%) patients receiving LYN-005, with a higher incidence in the 28-mg group than in the 14 mg group.

Additionally, nine patients had abdominal pain, discomfort, or tenderness, and five patients (21%) had nausea.

Overall, the incidence of adverse events was higher for LYN-005, compared with IR risperidone, but they were judged to be mild and transitory, with fewer AEs reported with subsequent LYN-005 dosing. After the first dose, 58% of patients reported an AE; this dropped to 18% after the third dose.
 

An important development

Commenting on the findings, Ira D. Glick, MD, professor emeritus, Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “The major problem with schizophrenia is getting adherence.”

“The better the adherence, the better the outcome, the worst the adherence, the worse the outcome, so being able to take a preparation less often is a very important advance in the field,” said Dr. Glick, who was not involved in the research

Long-acting preparations for chronic mental illness represent a significant advance, he said.

“The future of the treatment of schizophrenia is long-acting injectables. That is the trend,” Dr. Glick explained. “The oral once-a-week preparation may be useful in a group of patients who are phobic about needles, but with the injections, you can be sure that the patient has received their medication. With the oral, there is more of a chance to be noncompliant.

“That said, having an effective, longer-acting oral for those who refuse injections is helpful. It’s an important development, and it’s part of the advance the whole field is moving toward, to ensure adherence to treatment. We know treatment works, we know it is going to save lives, and that’s what this ultra–long-acting formulation is promoting.”

Dr. Glick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel, ultra–long-acting oral formulation of the antipsychotic risperidone (Risperdal) only needs to be taken once weekly and appears to be safe and effective, results of a new phase 2 study suggest.

The new formulation, LYN-005 (Lyndra Therapeutics), quickly reached therapeutic levels in patients, provided sustained exposure to risperidone active moiety over 7 days, and reduced peak drug exposure.

“This novel formulation has the potential to improve treatment adherence and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder,” study investigator David Walling, PhD, chief clinical officer for the Collaborative NeuroScience Network, Long Beach, Calif., said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Adherence is key

About 50% of patients don’t take medications as prescribed, creating a significant relapse risk, Dr. Walling noted.

“Here we have the possibility of having a once-weekly oral medication, which means patients don’t have to struggle with the issue of taking the medication daily. Right now, all we have on the market for long-acting medications for schizophrenia are injectables, where the patient has to go get a shot every month or every 2 weeks in order to have the medication in their system for a longer period of time,” he added.

The study included 32 clinically stable patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Patients received immediate-release (IR) risperidone at 2 mg or 4 mg, based on their current antipsychotic dose, for 13 days. 

They were then randomly assigned 3:1 to receive either IR risperidone-matched placebo and LYN-005 at 14 mg or 28 mg risperidone (12 patients per group), or to LYN-005 matched placebo and IR risperidone, 2 mg or 4 mg, (4 patients per group) for 3 weeks.

LYN-05 was administered once weekly for a total of three doses. IR risperidone was administered once daily.

The study’s primary endpoints were pharmacokinetics after LYN-005 and IR risperidone and the incidence of adverse events.

Following LYN-005 administration, systemic exposure to risperidone active moiety (risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone combined) increased with the increasing dose. Peak concentration occurred within the first 3 days of dosing and peak exposures from LYN-005 were lower than with IR risperidone.

“Steady state was achieved around day 15. It didn’t take 3 weeks of dosing for patients to achieve steady state. We achieved that around day 15,” Dr. Walling said.

LYN-005 was well tolerated in the 85% of study participants who received all three doses.

Adverse events occurred in 18 (75%) patients who received LYN-005. Of these, 10 were with the 14-mg dose, and 8 with the 28-mg dose.

The most common AEs were gastrointestinal, which occurred in 13 (54%) patients receiving LYN-005, with a higher incidence in the 28-mg group than in the 14 mg group.

Additionally, nine patients had abdominal pain, discomfort, or tenderness, and five patients (21%) had nausea.

Overall, the incidence of adverse events was higher for LYN-005, compared with IR risperidone, but they were judged to be mild and transitory, with fewer AEs reported with subsequent LYN-005 dosing. After the first dose, 58% of patients reported an AE; this dropped to 18% after the third dose.
 

An important development

Commenting on the findings, Ira D. Glick, MD, professor emeritus, Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “The major problem with schizophrenia is getting adherence.”

“The better the adherence, the better the outcome, the worst the adherence, the worse the outcome, so being able to take a preparation less often is a very important advance in the field,” said Dr. Glick, who was not involved in the research

Long-acting preparations for chronic mental illness represent a significant advance, he said.

“The future of the treatment of schizophrenia is long-acting injectables. That is the trend,” Dr. Glick explained. “The oral once-a-week preparation may be useful in a group of patients who are phobic about needles, but with the injections, you can be sure that the patient has received their medication. With the oral, there is more of a chance to be noncompliant.

“That said, having an effective, longer-acting oral for those who refuse injections is helpful. It’s an important development, and it’s part of the advance the whole field is moving toward, to ensure adherence to treatment. We know treatment works, we know it is going to save lives, and that’s what this ultra–long-acting formulation is promoting.”

Dr. Glick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel, ultra–long-acting oral formulation of the antipsychotic risperidone (Risperdal) only needs to be taken once weekly and appears to be safe and effective, results of a new phase 2 study suggest.

The new formulation, LYN-005 (Lyndra Therapeutics), quickly reached therapeutic levels in patients, provided sustained exposure to risperidone active moiety over 7 days, and reduced peak drug exposure.

“This novel formulation has the potential to improve treatment adherence and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder,” study investigator David Walling, PhD, chief clinical officer for the Collaborative NeuroScience Network, Long Beach, Calif., said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Adherence is key

About 50% of patients don’t take medications as prescribed, creating a significant relapse risk, Dr. Walling noted.

“Here we have the possibility of having a once-weekly oral medication, which means patients don’t have to struggle with the issue of taking the medication daily. Right now, all we have on the market for long-acting medications for schizophrenia are injectables, where the patient has to go get a shot every month or every 2 weeks in order to have the medication in their system for a longer period of time,” he added.

The study included 32 clinically stable patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Patients received immediate-release (IR) risperidone at 2 mg or 4 mg, based on their current antipsychotic dose, for 13 days. 

They were then randomly assigned 3:1 to receive either IR risperidone-matched placebo and LYN-005 at 14 mg or 28 mg risperidone (12 patients per group), or to LYN-005 matched placebo and IR risperidone, 2 mg or 4 mg, (4 patients per group) for 3 weeks.

LYN-05 was administered once weekly for a total of three doses. IR risperidone was administered once daily.

The study’s primary endpoints were pharmacokinetics after LYN-005 and IR risperidone and the incidence of adverse events.

Following LYN-005 administration, systemic exposure to risperidone active moiety (risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone combined) increased with the increasing dose. Peak concentration occurred within the first 3 days of dosing and peak exposures from LYN-005 were lower than with IR risperidone.

“Steady state was achieved around day 15. It didn’t take 3 weeks of dosing for patients to achieve steady state. We achieved that around day 15,” Dr. Walling said.

LYN-005 was well tolerated in the 85% of study participants who received all three doses.

Adverse events occurred in 18 (75%) patients who received LYN-005. Of these, 10 were with the 14-mg dose, and 8 with the 28-mg dose.

The most common AEs were gastrointestinal, which occurred in 13 (54%) patients receiving LYN-005, with a higher incidence in the 28-mg group than in the 14 mg group.

Additionally, nine patients had abdominal pain, discomfort, or tenderness, and five patients (21%) had nausea.

Overall, the incidence of adverse events was higher for LYN-005, compared with IR risperidone, but they were judged to be mild and transitory, with fewer AEs reported with subsequent LYN-005 dosing. After the first dose, 58% of patients reported an AE; this dropped to 18% after the third dose.
 

An important development

Commenting on the findings, Ira D. Glick, MD, professor emeritus, Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “The major problem with schizophrenia is getting adherence.”

“The better the adherence, the better the outcome, the worst the adherence, the worse the outcome, so being able to take a preparation less often is a very important advance in the field,” said Dr. Glick, who was not involved in the research

Long-acting preparations for chronic mental illness represent a significant advance, he said.

“The future of the treatment of schizophrenia is long-acting injectables. That is the trend,” Dr. Glick explained. “The oral once-a-week preparation may be useful in a group of patients who are phobic about needles, but with the injections, you can be sure that the patient has received their medication. With the oral, there is more of a chance to be noncompliant.

“That said, having an effective, longer-acting oral for those who refuse injections is helpful. It’s an important development, and it’s part of the advance the whole field is moving toward, to ensure adherence to treatment. We know treatment works, we know it is going to save lives, and that’s what this ultra–long-acting formulation is promoting.”

Dr. Glick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).

Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.

Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.

“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
 

High rates of depression, suicide

She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.

One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).

As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:

• Include only when they result in impairment.
• Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
• Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
• Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.

The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.

Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.

The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”

But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
 

Time to remove stigma

Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or ­– the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”

Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.

Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”

Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).

Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.

Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.

“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
 

High rates of depression, suicide

She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.

One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).

As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:

• Include only when they result in impairment.
• Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
• Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
• Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.

The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.

Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.

The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”

But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
 

Time to remove stigma

Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or ­– the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”

Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.

Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”

Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).

Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.

Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.

“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
 

High rates of depression, suicide

She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.

One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).

As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:

• Include only when they result in impairment.
• Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
• Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
• Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.

The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.

Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.

The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”

But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
 

Time to remove stigma

Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or ­– the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”

Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.

Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”

Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.