Clinical Psychiatry News

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

Rare is the parent who has never so much as thought about spanking an unruly child. But a new study provides another reason to avoid corporal punishment: Spanking may cause changes in the same areas of a child’s brain that are affected by more severe physical and sexual abuse.

Previous research has consistently found links between spanking and behavioral problems, aggression, depression, and anxiety, says Jorge Cuartas, a doctoral candidate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and first author of the study. “We wanted to look at one potential mechanism, brain development, that might explain how corporal punishment can impact children’s behavior and cognitive development.”

The study, published in Child Development, used functional MRIs to map brain changes in 147 tweens who’d never experienced physical or sexual abuse. Researchers tracked which parts of the children’s brains activated in response to neutral or fearful facial expressions. When shown pictures of someone looking fearful, kids who reported having been spanked had a larger response in certain parts of the brain than kids who hadn’t been. Those areas drive the response to environmental cues, recognizing threats and reacting to them. If a child’s brain overreacts, behavioral challenges can result.

“We saw those changes in the same areas as more severe forms of abuse or domestic violence. It suggests the difference is of degree rather than type,” Mr. Cuartas says. As far as a child’s brain is concerned, “It’s all violence.”

It’s a significant finding because many parents don’t think of spanking as being violent, says Vincent J. Palusci, MD, a pediatrician and editor-in-chief of the journal Child Maltreatment. “We want to raise kids who are happy and healthy, and many parents who use spanking are doing it with that goal.”
 

Spanking in the U.S.

Around the world, 62 states and countries have outlawed corporal punishment. While the U.S. has no such protections, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have condemned the practice. Acceptance of spanking seems to be shrinking: The percentage of parents in this country who say they spank their children is trending downward. In 1993, 50% of parents surveyed said they did, but by 2017 that number had fallen to 35%. Still far too many, Mr. Cuartas and Dr. Palusci say, but a promising trend.

“While we wouldn’t as parents want to hurt our kids,” Dr. Palusci says, “we need to understand that spanking can be just as bad as things we’d never do.”
 

Discipline vs. punishment

For some parents, it may require a shift in thinking, differentiating between discipline and punishment. “Discipline changes behavior – it teaches positive behavior, empathy, essential social skills. But that’s different from punishment,” Mr. Cuartas says. “That makes somebody feel pain or shame. We have to start thinking about spanking as punishment.”

That can be difficult, especially for adults who’ve been spanked themselves. They may believe that since they turned out fine, spanking must be fine, too. But the study doesn’t suggest that every child who’s spanked will have these difficulties – it just shows they happen, Mr. Cuartas says. “Compare this to smoking. We all know someone who smokes who’s healthy, but that doesn’t mean smoking is good,” he says. “Individual cases aren’t enough to understand whether certain experiences are good or bad.”

Dr. Palusci draws parallels to the advice pregnant women receive about taking medications: If it hasn’t been tested in pregnancy specifically, no amount can be considered safe. “We don’t have the studies to say how much spanking is dangerous, so we have to think that any amount has this potential.”

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

Rare is the parent who has never so much as thought about spanking an unruly child. But a new study provides another reason to avoid corporal punishment: Spanking may cause changes in the same areas of a child’s brain that are affected by more severe physical and sexual abuse.

Previous research has consistently found links between spanking and behavioral problems, aggression, depression, and anxiety, says Jorge Cuartas, a doctoral candidate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and first author of the study. “We wanted to look at one potential mechanism, brain development, that might explain how corporal punishment can impact children’s behavior and cognitive development.”

The study, published in Child Development, used functional MRIs to map brain changes in 147 tweens who’d never experienced physical or sexual abuse. Researchers tracked which parts of the children’s brains activated in response to neutral or fearful facial expressions. When shown pictures of someone looking fearful, kids who reported having been spanked had a larger response in certain parts of the brain than kids who hadn’t been. Those areas drive the response to environmental cues, recognizing threats and reacting to them. If a child’s brain overreacts, behavioral challenges can result.

“We saw those changes in the same areas as more severe forms of abuse or domestic violence. It suggests the difference is of degree rather than type,” Mr. Cuartas says. As far as a child’s brain is concerned, “It’s all violence.”

It’s a significant finding because many parents don’t think of spanking as being violent, says Vincent J. Palusci, MD, a pediatrician and editor-in-chief of the journal Child Maltreatment. “We want to raise kids who are happy and healthy, and many parents who use spanking are doing it with that goal.”
 

Spanking in the U.S.

Around the world, 62 states and countries have outlawed corporal punishment. While the U.S. has no such protections, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have condemned the practice. Acceptance of spanking seems to be shrinking: The percentage of parents in this country who say they spank their children is trending downward. In 1993, 50% of parents surveyed said they did, but by 2017 that number had fallen to 35%. Still far too many, Mr. Cuartas and Dr. Palusci say, but a promising trend.

“While we wouldn’t as parents want to hurt our kids,” Dr. Palusci says, “we need to understand that spanking can be just as bad as things we’d never do.”
 

Discipline vs. punishment

For some parents, it may require a shift in thinking, differentiating between discipline and punishment. “Discipline changes behavior – it teaches positive behavior, empathy, essential social skills. But that’s different from punishment,” Mr. Cuartas says. “That makes somebody feel pain or shame. We have to start thinking about spanking as punishment.”

That can be difficult, especially for adults who’ve been spanked themselves. They may believe that since they turned out fine, spanking must be fine, too. But the study doesn’t suggest that every child who’s spanked will have these difficulties – it just shows they happen, Mr. Cuartas says. “Compare this to smoking. We all know someone who smokes who’s healthy, but that doesn’t mean smoking is good,” he says. “Individual cases aren’t enough to understand whether certain experiences are good or bad.”

Dr. Palusci draws parallels to the advice pregnant women receive about taking medications: If it hasn’t been tested in pregnancy specifically, no amount can be considered safe. “We don’t have the studies to say how much spanking is dangerous, so we have to think that any amount has this potential.”

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

Rare is the parent who has never so much as thought about spanking an unruly child. But a new study provides another reason to avoid corporal punishment: Spanking may cause changes in the same areas of a child’s brain that are affected by more severe physical and sexual abuse.

Previous research has consistently found links between spanking and behavioral problems, aggression, depression, and anxiety, says Jorge Cuartas, a doctoral candidate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and first author of the study. “We wanted to look at one potential mechanism, brain development, that might explain how corporal punishment can impact children’s behavior and cognitive development.”

The study, published in Child Development, used functional MRIs to map brain changes in 147 tweens who’d never experienced physical or sexual abuse. Researchers tracked which parts of the children’s brains activated in response to neutral or fearful facial expressions. When shown pictures of someone looking fearful, kids who reported having been spanked had a larger response in certain parts of the brain than kids who hadn’t been. Those areas drive the response to environmental cues, recognizing threats and reacting to them. If a child’s brain overreacts, behavioral challenges can result.

“We saw those changes in the same areas as more severe forms of abuse or domestic violence. It suggests the difference is of degree rather than type,” Mr. Cuartas says. As far as a child’s brain is concerned, “It’s all violence.”

It’s a significant finding because many parents don’t think of spanking as being violent, says Vincent J. Palusci, MD, a pediatrician and editor-in-chief of the journal Child Maltreatment. “We want to raise kids who are happy and healthy, and many parents who use spanking are doing it with that goal.”
 

Spanking in the U.S.

Around the world, 62 states and countries have outlawed corporal punishment. While the U.S. has no such protections, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have condemned the practice. Acceptance of spanking seems to be shrinking: The percentage of parents in this country who say they spank their children is trending downward. In 1993, 50% of parents surveyed said they did, but by 2017 that number had fallen to 35%. Still far too many, Mr. Cuartas and Dr. Palusci say, but a promising trend.

“While we wouldn’t as parents want to hurt our kids,” Dr. Palusci says, “we need to understand that spanking can be just as bad as things we’d never do.”
 

Discipline vs. punishment

For some parents, it may require a shift in thinking, differentiating between discipline and punishment. “Discipline changes behavior – it teaches positive behavior, empathy, essential social skills. But that’s different from punishment,” Mr. Cuartas says. “That makes somebody feel pain or shame. We have to start thinking about spanking as punishment.”

That can be difficult, especially for adults who’ve been spanked themselves. They may believe that since they turned out fine, spanking must be fine, too. But the study doesn’t suggest that every child who’s spanked will have these difficulties – it just shows they happen, Mr. Cuartas says. “Compare this to smoking. We all know someone who smokes who’s healthy, but that doesn’t mean smoking is good,” he says. “Individual cases aren’t enough to understand whether certain experiences are good or bad.”

Dr. Palusci draws parallels to the advice pregnant women receive about taking medications: If it hasn’t been tested in pregnancy specifically, no amount can be considered safe. “We don’t have the studies to say how much spanking is dangerous, so we have to think that any amount has this potential.”

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

Schizophrenia patients with parkinsonism show unique neurodevelopmental signatures on imaging that involve the sensorimotor system, according to MRI data from 73 adult schizophrenia patients.

Although sensorimotor abnormalities are common in patients with schizophrenia, the neurobiology of parkinsonism in particular is not well understood. Aberrant neurodevelopment is considered a potential mechanism of action for the emergence of such abnormalities, wrote Robert Christian Wolf, MD, of Heidelberg (Germany) University, and colleagues.

In a multimodal MRI study published in Schizophrenia Research, the investigators identified 38 adults with schizophrenia and parkinsonism (SZ-P), 35 schizophrenia patients without parkinsonism (SZ-nonP), and 20 healthy controls.

Parkinsonism was defined as scores of 4 or higher on the Simpson-Angus Scale, while non-Parkinsonism schizophrenia patients had scores of 1 or less.

The researchers examined cortical and subcortical gray-matter volume, as well as three cortical surface markers related to neurodevelopment: cortical thickness (CTh), complexity of cortical folding (CCF), and sulcus depth.

Overall, the SZ-P patients showed increased CCF in the left supplementary motor cortex (SMC) and decreased left postcentral sulcus depth, compared with SZ-nonP patients (P < .05). The left SMC also showed increased CCF, compared with healthy controls – but that difference was not significant.

Both SZ-P and SZ-nonP patients showed higher levels of activity in the left SMC, compared with controls, and activity was higher in SZ-nonP patients, compared with SZ-P patients. In addition, parkinsonism severity was negatively associated with left middle frontal CCF and left anterior cingulate cortex CTh, Dr. Wolf and colleagues reported.

“Overall, the data support the notion that cortical features of distinct neurodevelopmental origin, particularly cortical folding indices such as CCF and sulcus depth, contribute to the pathogenesis of parkinsonism in SZ,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design, the challenges of using the potential restraint inherent in the Simpson-Angus Scale to diagnose parkinsonism, the inability to gauge the impact of lifetime exposure to antipsychotics, and the inability to identify changes in brain stem nuclei, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest the impact of cortical development on parkinsonism in schizophrenia,.

“Cortical surface changes in the sensorimotor system suggest abnormal neurodevelopmental processes that are associated with increased risk for intrinsic sensorimotor abnormalities in SZ and related psychotic disorders,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Schizophrenia patients with parkinsonism show unique neurodevelopmental signatures on imaging that involve the sensorimotor system, according to MRI data from 73 adult schizophrenia patients.

Although sensorimotor abnormalities are common in patients with schizophrenia, the neurobiology of parkinsonism in particular is not well understood. Aberrant neurodevelopment is considered a potential mechanism of action for the emergence of such abnormalities, wrote Robert Christian Wolf, MD, of Heidelberg (Germany) University, and colleagues.

In a multimodal MRI study published in Schizophrenia Research, the investigators identified 38 adults with schizophrenia and parkinsonism (SZ-P), 35 schizophrenia patients without parkinsonism (SZ-nonP), and 20 healthy controls.

Parkinsonism was defined as scores of 4 or higher on the Simpson-Angus Scale, while non-Parkinsonism schizophrenia patients had scores of 1 or less.

The researchers examined cortical and subcortical gray-matter volume, as well as three cortical surface markers related to neurodevelopment: cortical thickness (CTh), complexity of cortical folding (CCF), and sulcus depth.

Overall, the SZ-P patients showed increased CCF in the left supplementary motor cortex (SMC) and decreased left postcentral sulcus depth, compared with SZ-nonP patients (P < .05). The left SMC also showed increased CCF, compared with healthy controls – but that difference was not significant.

Both SZ-P and SZ-nonP patients showed higher levels of activity in the left SMC, compared with controls, and activity was higher in SZ-nonP patients, compared with SZ-P patients. In addition, parkinsonism severity was negatively associated with left middle frontal CCF and left anterior cingulate cortex CTh, Dr. Wolf and colleagues reported.

“Overall, the data support the notion that cortical features of distinct neurodevelopmental origin, particularly cortical folding indices such as CCF and sulcus depth, contribute to the pathogenesis of parkinsonism in SZ,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design, the challenges of using the potential restraint inherent in the Simpson-Angus Scale to diagnose parkinsonism, the inability to gauge the impact of lifetime exposure to antipsychotics, and the inability to identify changes in brain stem nuclei, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest the impact of cortical development on parkinsonism in schizophrenia,.

“Cortical surface changes in the sensorimotor system suggest abnormal neurodevelopmental processes that are associated with increased risk for intrinsic sensorimotor abnormalities in SZ and related psychotic disorders,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Schizophrenia patients with parkinsonism show unique neurodevelopmental signatures on imaging that involve the sensorimotor system, according to MRI data from 73 adult schizophrenia patients.

Although sensorimotor abnormalities are common in patients with schizophrenia, the neurobiology of parkinsonism in particular is not well understood. Aberrant neurodevelopment is considered a potential mechanism of action for the emergence of such abnormalities, wrote Robert Christian Wolf, MD, of Heidelberg (Germany) University, and colleagues.

In a multimodal MRI study published in Schizophrenia Research, the investigators identified 38 adults with schizophrenia and parkinsonism (SZ-P), 35 schizophrenia patients without parkinsonism (SZ-nonP), and 20 healthy controls.

Parkinsonism was defined as scores of 4 or higher on the Simpson-Angus Scale, while non-Parkinsonism schizophrenia patients had scores of 1 or less.

The researchers examined cortical and subcortical gray-matter volume, as well as three cortical surface markers related to neurodevelopment: cortical thickness (CTh), complexity of cortical folding (CCF), and sulcus depth.

Overall, the SZ-P patients showed increased CCF in the left supplementary motor cortex (SMC) and decreased left postcentral sulcus depth, compared with SZ-nonP patients (P < .05). The left SMC also showed increased CCF, compared with healthy controls – but that difference was not significant.

Both SZ-P and SZ-nonP patients showed higher levels of activity in the left SMC, compared with controls, and activity was higher in SZ-nonP patients, compared with SZ-P patients. In addition, parkinsonism severity was negatively associated with left middle frontal CCF and left anterior cingulate cortex CTh, Dr. Wolf and colleagues reported.

“Overall, the data support the notion that cortical features of distinct neurodevelopmental origin, particularly cortical folding indices such as CCF and sulcus depth, contribute to the pathogenesis of parkinsonism in SZ,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design, the challenges of using the potential restraint inherent in the Simpson-Angus Scale to diagnose parkinsonism, the inability to gauge the impact of lifetime exposure to antipsychotics, and the inability to identify changes in brain stem nuclei, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest the impact of cortical development on parkinsonism in schizophrenia,.

“Cortical surface changes in the sensorimotor system suggest abnormal neurodevelopmental processes that are associated with increased risk for intrinsic sensorimotor abnormalities in SZ and related psychotic disorders,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Bipolar disorder patients with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder were significantly more likely to suffer from tic disorders, as well as hoarding, excoriation, and body dysmorphic disorder, than were those without comorbid OCD, data from 70 patients suggest.

Between 10% and 20% of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) also meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and these patients are more likely to experience treatment resistance and poor prognosis than are BD patients without OCD. In addition, preliminary indications suggest a specific association between OCD and bipolar depression (BP-D) in particular, wrote Leonid Braverman, MD, of Ma’ale HaCarmel Mental Health Center, Tirat Carmel, Israel, and colleagues.

In addition, “there is compelling evidence indicating that OCD-spectrum and tic disorders share with OCD clinical characteristics, familial inheritance, neurobiological underpinnings and some aspects of pharmacotherapy,” and investigations into the clinical characteristics of OCD spectrum behaviors in BP-D patients with and without OCD are ongoing, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (2021 Mar 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100643), the researchers reviewed data from 87 adults who met the DSM-5 criteria for BP-D. Of these, 27 also met criteria for OCD, 17 for subthreshold OCD, and 43 had neither OCD nor subthreshold OCD. The researchers compared the 27 OCD patients and the 43 non-OCD patients; the OCD patients had significantly higher rates overall of body dysmorphic disorder, hoarding disorder, excoriation disorder, and tic disorder, compared with non-OCD patients (P range from < .05-0.01 for all). No differences between the groups appeared for trichotillomania.

Also, the researchers found significant between-group differences in the number of patients with at least one OCD spectrum disorder and tic disorders (13 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 3 of 37 patients in the non-OCD group) and in the co-occurrence of two OCD-spectrum and tic disorders (3 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 1 patient in the non-OCD group).

The most common comorbid psychiatric disorders in both groups were substance use and combined anxiety disorders, followed by eating disorders, but no between-group differences were found in the frequencies of any of these conditions.

“From the clinical perspective, the finding of an aggregation of OCD-spectrum and tic disorders in BP-D/OCD patients justifies evaluation of these comorbidities in BP-D patients,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, cross-sectional design, and exclusion of subsyndromic disorders, the researchers noted. However, the results support findings from previous studies, and the study emphasizes the clinical complexity and poor prognosis for these patients. Therefore, additional research is needed in patients with BP-D verse the manic/hypomanic phases of bipolar illness to determine similar patterns, they said. Medication trials are needed to address functional impairments in these patients, given the differences in treatment of BDD, hoarding, excoriation, and tic disorders, compared with “pure” OCD, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers reported no financial conflicts.

Bipolar disorder patients with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder were significantly more likely to suffer from tic disorders, as well as hoarding, excoriation, and body dysmorphic disorder, than were those without comorbid OCD, data from 70 patients suggest.

Between 10% and 20% of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) also meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and these patients are more likely to experience treatment resistance and poor prognosis than are BD patients without OCD. In addition, preliminary indications suggest a specific association between OCD and bipolar depression (BP-D) in particular, wrote Leonid Braverman, MD, of Ma’ale HaCarmel Mental Health Center, Tirat Carmel, Israel, and colleagues.

In addition, “there is compelling evidence indicating that OCD-spectrum and tic disorders share with OCD clinical characteristics, familial inheritance, neurobiological underpinnings and some aspects of pharmacotherapy,” and investigations into the clinical characteristics of OCD spectrum behaviors in BP-D patients with and without OCD are ongoing, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (2021 Mar 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100643), the researchers reviewed data from 87 adults who met the DSM-5 criteria for BP-D. Of these, 27 also met criteria for OCD, 17 for subthreshold OCD, and 43 had neither OCD nor subthreshold OCD. The researchers compared the 27 OCD patients and the 43 non-OCD patients; the OCD patients had significantly higher rates overall of body dysmorphic disorder, hoarding disorder, excoriation disorder, and tic disorder, compared with non-OCD patients (P range from < .05-0.01 for all). No differences between the groups appeared for trichotillomania.

Also, the researchers found significant between-group differences in the number of patients with at least one OCD spectrum disorder and tic disorders (13 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 3 of 37 patients in the non-OCD group) and in the co-occurrence of two OCD-spectrum and tic disorders (3 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 1 patient in the non-OCD group).

The most common comorbid psychiatric disorders in both groups were substance use and combined anxiety disorders, followed by eating disorders, but no between-group differences were found in the frequencies of any of these conditions.

“From the clinical perspective, the finding of an aggregation of OCD-spectrum and tic disorders in BP-D/OCD patients justifies evaluation of these comorbidities in BP-D patients,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, cross-sectional design, and exclusion of subsyndromic disorders, the researchers noted. However, the results support findings from previous studies, and the study emphasizes the clinical complexity and poor prognosis for these patients. Therefore, additional research is needed in patients with BP-D verse the manic/hypomanic phases of bipolar illness to determine similar patterns, they said. Medication trials are needed to address functional impairments in these patients, given the differences in treatment of BDD, hoarding, excoriation, and tic disorders, compared with “pure” OCD, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers reported no financial conflicts.

Bipolar disorder patients with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder were significantly more likely to suffer from tic disorders, as well as hoarding, excoriation, and body dysmorphic disorder, than were those without comorbid OCD, data from 70 patients suggest.

Between 10% and 20% of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) also meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and these patients are more likely to experience treatment resistance and poor prognosis than are BD patients without OCD. In addition, preliminary indications suggest a specific association between OCD and bipolar depression (BP-D) in particular, wrote Leonid Braverman, MD, of Ma’ale HaCarmel Mental Health Center, Tirat Carmel, Israel, and colleagues.

In addition, “there is compelling evidence indicating that OCD-spectrum and tic disorders share with OCD clinical characteristics, familial inheritance, neurobiological underpinnings and some aspects of pharmacotherapy,” and investigations into the clinical characteristics of OCD spectrum behaviors in BP-D patients with and without OCD are ongoing, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (2021 Mar 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100643), the researchers reviewed data from 87 adults who met the DSM-5 criteria for BP-D. Of these, 27 also met criteria for OCD, 17 for subthreshold OCD, and 43 had neither OCD nor subthreshold OCD. The researchers compared the 27 OCD patients and the 43 non-OCD patients; the OCD patients had significantly higher rates overall of body dysmorphic disorder, hoarding disorder, excoriation disorder, and tic disorder, compared with non-OCD patients (P range from < .05-0.01 for all). No differences between the groups appeared for trichotillomania.

Also, the researchers found significant between-group differences in the number of patients with at least one OCD spectrum disorder and tic disorders (13 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 3 of 37 patients in the non-OCD group) and in the co-occurrence of two OCD-spectrum and tic disorders (3 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 1 patient in the non-OCD group).

The most common comorbid psychiatric disorders in both groups were substance use and combined anxiety disorders, followed by eating disorders, but no between-group differences were found in the frequencies of any of these conditions.

“From the clinical perspective, the finding of an aggregation of OCD-spectrum and tic disorders in BP-D/OCD patients justifies evaluation of these comorbidities in BP-D patients,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, cross-sectional design, and exclusion of subsyndromic disorders, the researchers noted. However, the results support findings from previous studies, and the study emphasizes the clinical complexity and poor prognosis for these patients. Therefore, additional research is needed in patients with BP-D verse the manic/hypomanic phases of bipolar illness to determine similar patterns, they said. Medication trials are needed to address functional impairments in these patients, given the differences in treatment of BDD, hoarding, excoriation, and tic disorders, compared with “pure” OCD, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers reported no financial conflicts.

Myoclonus was diagnosed in about half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were evaluated for movement disorders, data from 50 cases show.

Abnormal movements often occur as complications from critical illness, and neurologic consultation can determine whether patients have experienced a seizure or stroke. However, restriction of bedside assessment in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic increases the risk that abnormal movements will be missed, Jeffrey R. Clark and Eric M. Liotta, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote.

“Given the limited reports of abnormal movements in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and increased recognition of neurologic manifestations of COVID-19, we sought to examine the frequency and etiology of this finding as an indication of neurologic consultation,” they said.

In a study published in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from the first 50 consecutive patients with COVID-19 symptoms who were hospitalized at a single center and underwent neurologic consultation between March 17, 2020, and May 18, 2020.

Overall, 11 patients (22.0%) of patients experienced abnormal movement, and all were admitted to the ICU within 7 days of meeting criteria for severe COVID-19. These patients included nine men and two women with an age range of 36-78 years. The most common comorbidities were obesity, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease.

Myoclonus (generalized and focal) was the most common abnormal movement, and present in 6 of the 11 patients. Three cases were attributed to high-intensity sedation, and three to toxic-metabolic disturbances. In two patients, abnormal movements were attributed to focal seizures in the setting of encephalopathy, with focal facial twitching. An additional two patients experienced tremors; one showed an acute subdural hemorrhage on CT imaging. The second patient showed no sign of stroke or other abnormality on MRI and the tremor improved during the hospital stay. One patient who experienced abnormal high-amplitude nonrhythmic movements of the lower extremities was diagnosed with serotonin syndrome that resolved after discontinuing high-dose fentanyl.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small study population and limited availability of MRI, the researchers noted. Assessing severe COVID-19 cases in the ICU setting presents a challenge because of limited patient participation and the potentially confounding effects of sedation and mechanical ventilation.

However, the results highlight the importance of bedside consultation for neurologic evaluation to implement timely, directed treatments, the researchers said.

“A heightened awareness of abnormal eye movements, or subtle facial tremoring, may be the first steps in recognizing potentially dangerous neurologic manifestations,” and clinicians caring for patients with severe COVID-19 should be able to recognize abnormal movements and seek neurologic consultation when indicated, they emphasized.

The study was supported in part by grants to coauthors Nicholas J. Reish, MD, and Dr. Liotta from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Myoclonus was diagnosed in about half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were evaluated for movement disorders, data from 50 cases show.

Abnormal movements often occur as complications from critical illness, and neurologic consultation can determine whether patients have experienced a seizure or stroke. However, restriction of bedside assessment in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic increases the risk that abnormal movements will be missed, Jeffrey R. Clark and Eric M. Liotta, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote.

“Given the limited reports of abnormal movements in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and increased recognition of neurologic manifestations of COVID-19, we sought to examine the frequency and etiology of this finding as an indication of neurologic consultation,” they said.

In a study published in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from the first 50 consecutive patients with COVID-19 symptoms who were hospitalized at a single center and underwent neurologic consultation between March 17, 2020, and May 18, 2020.

Overall, 11 patients (22.0%) of patients experienced abnormal movement, and all were admitted to the ICU within 7 days of meeting criteria for severe COVID-19. These patients included nine men and two women with an age range of 36-78 years. The most common comorbidities were obesity, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease.

Myoclonus (generalized and focal) was the most common abnormal movement, and present in 6 of the 11 patients. Three cases were attributed to high-intensity sedation, and three to toxic-metabolic disturbances. In two patients, abnormal movements were attributed to focal seizures in the setting of encephalopathy, with focal facial twitching. An additional two patients experienced tremors; one showed an acute subdural hemorrhage on CT imaging. The second patient showed no sign of stroke or other abnormality on MRI and the tremor improved during the hospital stay. One patient who experienced abnormal high-amplitude nonrhythmic movements of the lower extremities was diagnosed with serotonin syndrome that resolved after discontinuing high-dose fentanyl.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small study population and limited availability of MRI, the researchers noted. Assessing severe COVID-19 cases in the ICU setting presents a challenge because of limited patient participation and the potentially confounding effects of sedation and mechanical ventilation.

However, the results highlight the importance of bedside consultation for neurologic evaluation to implement timely, directed treatments, the researchers said.

“A heightened awareness of abnormal eye movements, or subtle facial tremoring, may be the first steps in recognizing potentially dangerous neurologic manifestations,” and clinicians caring for patients with severe COVID-19 should be able to recognize abnormal movements and seek neurologic consultation when indicated, they emphasized.

The study was supported in part by grants to coauthors Nicholas J. Reish, MD, and Dr. Liotta from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Myoclonus was diagnosed in about half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were evaluated for movement disorders, data from 50 cases show.

Abnormal movements often occur as complications from critical illness, and neurologic consultation can determine whether patients have experienced a seizure or stroke. However, restriction of bedside assessment in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic increases the risk that abnormal movements will be missed, Jeffrey R. Clark and Eric M. Liotta, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote.

“Given the limited reports of abnormal movements in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and increased recognition of neurologic manifestations of COVID-19, we sought to examine the frequency and etiology of this finding as an indication of neurologic consultation,” they said.

In a study published in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from the first 50 consecutive patients with COVID-19 symptoms who were hospitalized at a single center and underwent neurologic consultation between March 17, 2020, and May 18, 2020.

Overall, 11 patients (22.0%) of patients experienced abnormal movement, and all were admitted to the ICU within 7 days of meeting criteria for severe COVID-19. These patients included nine men and two women with an age range of 36-78 years. The most common comorbidities were obesity, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease.

Myoclonus (generalized and focal) was the most common abnormal movement, and present in 6 of the 11 patients. Three cases were attributed to high-intensity sedation, and three to toxic-metabolic disturbances. In two patients, abnormal movements were attributed to focal seizures in the setting of encephalopathy, with focal facial twitching. An additional two patients experienced tremors; one showed an acute subdural hemorrhage on CT imaging. The second patient showed no sign of stroke or other abnormality on MRI and the tremor improved during the hospital stay. One patient who experienced abnormal high-amplitude nonrhythmic movements of the lower extremities was diagnosed with serotonin syndrome that resolved after discontinuing high-dose fentanyl.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small study population and limited availability of MRI, the researchers noted. Assessing severe COVID-19 cases in the ICU setting presents a challenge because of limited patient participation and the potentially confounding effects of sedation and mechanical ventilation.

However, the results highlight the importance of bedside consultation for neurologic evaluation to implement timely, directed treatments, the researchers said.

“A heightened awareness of abnormal eye movements, or subtle facial tremoring, may be the first steps in recognizing potentially dangerous neurologic manifestations,” and clinicians caring for patients with severe COVID-19 should be able to recognize abnormal movements and seek neurologic consultation when indicated, they emphasized.

The study was supported in part by grants to coauthors Nicholas J. Reish, MD, and Dr. Liotta from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

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

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

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

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

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

As some countries brace for yet another possible surge in the COVID-19 pandemic – particularly among young adults who have not yet been vaccinated – clinicians should remain wary of the cardinal symptoms of adult ADHD.

Research from an Israeli study shows that individuals with unmedicated ADHD are 52% more likely to test positive for the virus.^1,2

The symptoms of ADHD, including impulsiveness and inability to follow directions, combined with the tendency to leave adults with ADHD on their own to sort out COVID-19–related protocols – make these individuals susceptible to exposure.

As we know, ADHD is a condition characterized by a pervasive pattern of impulsivity and/or inattention, which greatly reduces organizational capabilities by interfering at the developmental level.³ Other key symptoms include short attention span, hyperactivity, restlessness, difficulty in prioritizing tasks, and an absence of time awareness. Symptom presentation of ADHD is contingent upon the nature of the individual’s overall mental health and etiologic issues that may be traced back to the brain’s development.⁴

Diagnosing ADHD in adults is relatively difficult, because a formal diagnosis generally requires symptoms to show up between the ages of 6 and 12.⁵ Also, clinicians can interview parents and family members to assess whether the classical features of ADHD were present in childhood for those suspected of having the condition.
 

Early vs. late presentation

Among the preschool population, it has been observed that emerging ADHD symptoms may progress with time or remain relatively constant with respect to the activities that children partake in. In some instances, impulsive behavior, especially compared with other symptoms, might be identified quickly by the attentive parent or caregiver. However, when ADHD appears in adulthood, it is possible that prior ADHD symptoms escaped detection – only to be diagnosed later in life because of varying presentations and the increased organizational demands of adulthood.

Meanwhile, diagnosis in adolescence can bring a different set of challenges to the forefront as teenagers face problems with self-management and responsibilities of daily living. These young people must cope with academic⁶ and social pressures – and a host of new societal expectations.

It is essential to understand how all of those societal factors have affected ADHD and its aspects, especially within the context of COVID-19. The coronavirus has introduced myriad challenges at the global level. Individuals with ADHD exhibit neurodevelopmental and corollary attention deficit issues that make them more susceptible to environmental stressors. Physical distancing practices might aggravate existing behavioral problems.
 

Distance forced by pandemic offers challenges

Despite the widespread adoption of telemedicine during the pandemic, some physicians think that the delivery of optimal care and the ability to adequately address patients’ health-related concerns have been compromised. Certainly, in the case of addressing the needs of patients with ADHD or related learning disorders, in-person examinations and clinical visits are best.

That is also the case for ADHD patients with comorbid sleep disorders. For those patients, it might be prudent to explore lifestyle changes (for example, improvements in sleep hygiene practices) before resorting to the use of pharmacologic agents such as hypnotics and melatonin. Along similar lines, the European ADHD Guideline Group (EAGG) advises the use of pharmacotherapy after the successful completion of a physical exam; patients already adhering to a treatment plan should continue therapy without interruption. Clinicians caring for patients with adult ADHD have faced a dilemma because treatment breaks increase the likelihood of illnesses resulting from the pandemic. Also, the inability to conduct treatment in person because of the pandemic raises concerns about pharmacotherapy.

The pandemic has affected the course of pediatric care and also has presented new challenges for adolescents as they begin to tackle unique problems related to their health concerns. In prepandemic times, teachers played integral roles in the diagnostic process, because they were able to readily identify children and teenagers with mental and physical challenges. In stark contrast, connecting with students online may not allow teachers to identify skill deficits in young patients or in adults with ADHD.

Furthermore, adults with ADHD and medical comorbidities may be at increased risk of disease exposure directly resulting from an inability to address their social and/or emotional well-being adequately. The social distancing and other mitigation measures advised by public health experts ensure safety and protection but also can present numerous hurdles for children, teenagers, adults – and their respective families.

Individuals with adult ADHD and other psychiatric disorders may downplay their psychological distress⁷ [for example, sleep dysfunction, issues concerning activities of daily living], and view it as being the natural product of the COVID-19 environment. As a result of their misconceptions, they may avoid increasing their medication dose to control emergent symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity, instead opting to manage stress without aid from health care professionals. The absence of patient-provider interactivity and the integration of telemedicine has introduced unnecessary obstacles with respect to medication management and therapy as well as general access to expert advice. It is of utmost importance for clinicians to identify at-risk patients and reeducate the adult ADHD patient on issues concerning medication intake and psychological wellness.

Individuals with developmental disorders may experience numerous setbacks when trying to navigate their environments. The lack of correct feedback, supervision, and guidance may adversely affect adults with ADHD, contributing toward a lack of self-esteem and social awareness.

Individuals with adult ADHD are more likely than are their younger counterparts to have medical comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease⁸ and type 2 diabetes,⁹ so it is crucial to prescribe dietary instructions to patients. Sometimes patients with adult ADHD lack support in the form of acceptance by family and peers, so it is critical for the patient to come to terms with his/her condition and seek professional help, incorporating effective strategies wherever needed to maintain day-to-day functioning.

Other possible comorbidities

There can be risk factors associated with isolation of adults who have depression and/or anxiety, poor eating habits, and maladaptive behaviors. Other adverse health-related issues may include substance use disorder.¹⁰ Drug use suppresses developmental growth and may induce ADHD symptom exacerbation. Consistent with Khantzian’s self-medication hypothesis, among individuals with ADHD, including those who lack a formal diagnosis, there is a tendency to gravitate toward illicit substances, in particular, stimulants.¹¹

We also know that adolescents are known to engage in normal risk-taking and social experimentation. Given that, the notion of boundary setting becomes a complicated affair during a pandemic. Adults may no longer be involved in the same types of risk-taking behaviors, but enforced self-isolation coupled with unchecked consumption of various social medial platforms continue to take a toll on personal development. Socialization plays an enormous role in maintaining psychological health, and social media is no substitute for in-person interactions. Such platforms can reduce mental growth opportunities and affect ADHD adults unfavorably.

For instance, it has been reported that women with adult ADHD are more likely to present with negative cognitive biases and symptoms of anxiety as a function of social media use.^12,13 As clinicians, we should recommend introducing activities with the aim of enhancing self-acceptance, mindfulness, and the ability to engage in healthy lifestyles. A holistic framework that focuses on psychological wellness and physical fitness will ensure treatment success. Medication management may prove to be a challenge because of differences in dosing, response schedules, and agreed-upon diagnostic criteria used for young patients, compared with those needed for adults.
 

Treatment strategies

Before the pandemic, researchers were observing an increase globally in the ADHD diagnosis,¹⁴ and clinicians have been exploring the efficacy of select medications, sometimes with limited success.¹⁵ Stimulant medication, combined with behavioral interventions, is supported by evidenced-based medicine and is the treatment of choice for childhood ADHD.

The stimulant remedy considered to be the most efficacious for adult ADHD is methylphenidate or dextroamphetamine.

However, be sure to proceed with caution and prepare a thorough work-up, because there can be cardiovascular risk factors associated with these medications with a pronounced increase in heart rate and blood pressure.

Stimulant medications are known to increase the risk of stroke or myocardial infarction for individuals with preexisting cardiovascular anomalies or structural anomalies. The American Heart Association no longer recommends a baseline EKG before commencing stimulant therapy with the exception of preexisting cardiac risk. Nonstimulant medications such as atomoxetine are available as alternatives.

The process of finding therapies that will reduce symptoms of ADHD takes considerable time, and individuals may fail to notice improvements, at least initially.

Before prescribing any medicine or therapies, it is important to evaluate for factors that are specific to ADHD and rule out the presence of other learning or developmental disorders, to prevent negative consequences.

Health care professionals can introduce nonspecific interventions as a means of tackling complicated cases of adult ADHD, especially those that coincide with underlying medical conditions (for example, cardiovascular disease, seizure disorders, and/or eating disorders). In such cases, stimulant medications may lead to symptom exacerbation, and the health care professional should carry out a systematic evaluation (risks vs. benefits of drug classes), despite the limitations of online appointments over the course of the pandemic.

Moreover, ADHD symptoms can take on a more severe form within the context of preexisting mood and anxiety disorders. Unfortunately, these comorbidities may have a negative prognostic outcome, too, thereby increasing other health-related risk factors. Psychological interventions can be implemented via online assessments because of recent technological advances worldwide, providing a new level of confidence and social engagement. EEG-assisted biofeedback is an example of new technological modalities that may help improve the overall performance and functionality of individuals with adult ADHD.¹⁶ Numerous services and resources are available to patients and their families that can improve mental health and well-being.

Other nonpharmacologic choices also play an instrumental role in bringing harmony and organization into a patient’s life through the use of daily planners, alarms, and to-do lists. In addition, therapists can provide treatment that helps individuals get motivated and reduce their anxiety levels. Behavioral therapies support patient initiatives by increasing their productivity, activity management, and satisfaction. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and marriage counseling and family therapy are modalities that may help adults with ADHD change underlying thoughts and perceptions and develop coping skills and self-esteem.

Appropriate to the pandemic situation is another treatment, e-therapy, which includes text-based communication, video calling, and phone calls. It is a low-cost and convenient alternative for people. For some patients, traveling to a particular clinic or counseling center can be difficult, and there is a shortage of counselors worldwide, so it is beneficial to talk with a counselor on a video/phone call or through social media. It is crucial for the ADHD coach to be trained with relevant knowledge to make plans, set goals, and manage a patient’s schedule of activities. For the counselor, sharing tips based on personal experience and making the appropriate suggestions allows adults with ADHD to stay motivated and focus on the task at hand. It should be noted that counselors play an important role in reducing stress levels for those diagnosed with ADHD, allowing patients to lead productive lives and achieve career goals.

Various online support communities can provide patients and their parents with educational resources, to address issues connected to ADHD in a professional manner.¹⁷

The road to treatment success

Any delays in treating adults with ADHD can lead to a frustrating situation in which the entire family will be affected. As stated earlier, numerous support groups are available to adults with ADHD, and some of those groups can offer valuable tips about addressing stress management and the diverse roles that parents and family members may play in patient care.¹⁸ These groups provide a network for people to exchange ideas and recommend strategies. Online support groups may connect patients directly with key opinion leaders and health care providers.

Individuals with ADHD often experience problems with organization and concentration – especially within the context of the pandemic – and receiving guidance from counselors will provide an opportunity to learn valuable coping strategies and manage symptoms, recognizing and mitigating any mood swings associated with anxiety or depression that emerge alongside their ADHD. Psychotherapy is instrumental in patient care, and individuals with adult ADHD should be taught to acknowledge the role of medications (for example, neglect, divert, or self-medicate). A holistic approach to managing ADHD symptoms is necessary for optimal functioning and independence.
 

Dr. Aman is a faculty member in the biology department of City Colleges of Chicago. She is a postdoctoral researcher at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF), Montreal; a fellow, medical staff development, from the American Academy of Medical Management; and a Masters Online Teacher, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Aman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the IMCHF, Montreal, and is based in New York. He is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Karama is a psychiatrist at the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal. He is an assistant professor at the department of psychiatry, McGill University, also in Montreal. He has no disclosures. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He has no disclosures.

References

1. J Atten Disord. 2020. doi: 10.1177/1087054720943271.

2. ADDitude Magazine. 2020 Jul 23.

3. Management of ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says. 2007 Oct 9. Guilford Press.

4. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 14;369(20):1935-44.

5. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63 Suppl 12:29-35.

6. J Atten Dis. 2015 Jan 12. doi: 10.1177/1087054144566076.

7. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Oct;292. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113345.

8. Case Rep Cardiol. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/2343691.

9. Curr Diab Rep. 2019 Jun 27;19(8):46. doi: 10.1007/s11892-019-1174-x.

10. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014 Mar;16(3):436. doi: 10.1007/s/11920-013-0436-6.

11. Current Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;13(12):e3-4.

12. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(40). doi: 10.1186/s/12888-020-02707-9.

13. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016 Mar;30(2):252–62.

14. ADDitude Magazine. 2017 Apr 6.

15. Harv Mental Health Letter. 2009 Nov.

16. MGM J Med Sci. 2020 Jul 17(3):161-2.

17. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 7.

18. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020 Dec;51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101845.

As some countries brace for yet another possible surge in the COVID-19 pandemic – particularly among young adults who have not yet been vaccinated – clinicians should remain wary of the cardinal symptoms of adult ADHD.

Research from an Israeli study shows that individuals with unmedicated ADHD are 52% more likely to test positive for the virus.^1,2

The symptoms of ADHD, including impulsiveness and inability to follow directions, combined with the tendency to leave adults with ADHD on their own to sort out COVID-19–related protocols – make these individuals susceptible to exposure.

As we know, ADHD is a condition characterized by a pervasive pattern of impulsivity and/or inattention, which greatly reduces organizational capabilities by interfering at the developmental level.³ Other key symptoms include short attention span, hyperactivity, restlessness, difficulty in prioritizing tasks, and an absence of time awareness. Symptom presentation of ADHD is contingent upon the nature of the individual’s overall mental health and etiologic issues that may be traced back to the brain’s development.⁴

Diagnosing ADHD in adults is relatively difficult, because a formal diagnosis generally requires symptoms to show up between the ages of 6 and 12.⁵ Also, clinicians can interview parents and family members to assess whether the classical features of ADHD were present in childhood for those suspected of having the condition.
 

Early vs. late presentation

Among the preschool population, it has been observed that emerging ADHD symptoms may progress with time or remain relatively constant with respect to the activities that children partake in. In some instances, impulsive behavior, especially compared with other symptoms, might be identified quickly by the attentive parent or caregiver. However, when ADHD appears in adulthood, it is possible that prior ADHD symptoms escaped detection – only to be diagnosed later in life because of varying presentations and the increased organizational demands of adulthood.

Meanwhile, diagnosis in adolescence can bring a different set of challenges to the forefront as teenagers face problems with self-management and responsibilities of daily living. These young people must cope with academic⁶ and social pressures – and a host of new societal expectations.

It is essential to understand how all of those societal factors have affected ADHD and its aspects, especially within the context of COVID-19. The coronavirus has introduced myriad challenges at the global level. Individuals with ADHD exhibit neurodevelopmental and corollary attention deficit issues that make them more susceptible to environmental stressors. Physical distancing practices might aggravate existing behavioral problems.
 

Distance forced by pandemic offers challenges

Despite the widespread adoption of telemedicine during the pandemic, some physicians think that the delivery of optimal care and the ability to adequately address patients’ health-related concerns have been compromised. Certainly, in the case of addressing the needs of patients with ADHD or related learning disorders, in-person examinations and clinical visits are best.

That is also the case for ADHD patients with comorbid sleep disorders. For those patients, it might be prudent to explore lifestyle changes (for example, improvements in sleep hygiene practices) before resorting to the use of pharmacologic agents such as hypnotics and melatonin. Along similar lines, the European ADHD Guideline Group (EAGG) advises the use of pharmacotherapy after the successful completion of a physical exam; patients already adhering to a treatment plan should continue therapy without interruption. Clinicians caring for patients with adult ADHD have faced a dilemma because treatment breaks increase the likelihood of illnesses resulting from the pandemic. Also, the inability to conduct treatment in person because of the pandemic raises concerns about pharmacotherapy.

The pandemic has affected the course of pediatric care and also has presented new challenges for adolescents as they begin to tackle unique problems related to their health concerns. In prepandemic times, teachers played integral roles in the diagnostic process, because they were able to readily identify children and teenagers with mental and physical challenges. In stark contrast, connecting with students online may not allow teachers to identify skill deficits in young patients or in adults with ADHD.

Furthermore, adults with ADHD and medical comorbidities may be at increased risk of disease exposure directly resulting from an inability to address their social and/or emotional well-being adequately. The social distancing and other mitigation measures advised by public health experts ensure safety and protection but also can present numerous hurdles for children, teenagers, adults – and their respective families.

Individuals with adult ADHD and other psychiatric disorders may downplay their psychological distress⁷ [for example, sleep dysfunction, issues concerning activities of daily living], and view it as being the natural product of the COVID-19 environment. As a result of their misconceptions, they may avoid increasing their medication dose to control emergent symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity, instead opting to manage stress without aid from health care professionals. The absence of patient-provider interactivity and the integration of telemedicine has introduced unnecessary obstacles with respect to medication management and therapy as well as general access to expert advice. It is of utmost importance for clinicians to identify at-risk patients and reeducate the adult ADHD patient on issues concerning medication intake and psychological wellness.

Individuals with developmental disorders may experience numerous setbacks when trying to navigate their environments. The lack of correct feedback, supervision, and guidance may adversely affect adults with ADHD, contributing toward a lack of self-esteem and social awareness.

Individuals with adult ADHD are more likely than are their younger counterparts to have medical comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease⁸ and type 2 diabetes,⁹ so it is crucial to prescribe dietary instructions to patients. Sometimes patients with adult ADHD lack support in the form of acceptance by family and peers, so it is critical for the patient to come to terms with his/her condition and seek professional help, incorporating effective strategies wherever needed to maintain day-to-day functioning.

Other possible comorbidities

There can be risk factors associated with isolation of adults who have depression and/or anxiety, poor eating habits, and maladaptive behaviors. Other adverse health-related issues may include substance use disorder.¹⁰ Drug use suppresses developmental growth and may induce ADHD symptom exacerbation. Consistent with Khantzian’s self-medication hypothesis, among individuals with ADHD, including those who lack a formal diagnosis, there is a tendency to gravitate toward illicit substances, in particular, stimulants.¹¹

We also know that adolescents are known to engage in normal risk-taking and social experimentation. Given that, the notion of boundary setting becomes a complicated affair during a pandemic. Adults may no longer be involved in the same types of risk-taking behaviors, but enforced self-isolation coupled with unchecked consumption of various social medial platforms continue to take a toll on personal development. Socialization plays an enormous role in maintaining psychological health, and social media is no substitute for in-person interactions. Such platforms can reduce mental growth opportunities and affect ADHD adults unfavorably.

For instance, it has been reported that women with adult ADHD are more likely to present with negative cognitive biases and symptoms of anxiety as a function of social media use.^12,13 As clinicians, we should recommend introducing activities with the aim of enhancing self-acceptance, mindfulness, and the ability to engage in healthy lifestyles. A holistic framework that focuses on psychological wellness and physical fitness will ensure treatment success. Medication management may prove to be a challenge because of differences in dosing, response schedules, and agreed-upon diagnostic criteria used for young patients, compared with those needed for adults.
 

Treatment strategies

Before the pandemic, researchers were observing an increase globally in the ADHD diagnosis,¹⁴ and clinicians have been exploring the efficacy of select medications, sometimes with limited success.¹⁵ Stimulant medication, combined with behavioral interventions, is supported by evidenced-based medicine and is the treatment of choice for childhood ADHD.

The stimulant remedy considered to be the most efficacious for adult ADHD is methylphenidate or dextroamphetamine.

However, be sure to proceed with caution and prepare a thorough work-up, because there can be cardiovascular risk factors associated with these medications with a pronounced increase in heart rate and blood pressure.

Stimulant medications are known to increase the risk of stroke or myocardial infarction for individuals with preexisting cardiovascular anomalies or structural anomalies. The American Heart Association no longer recommends a baseline EKG before commencing stimulant therapy with the exception of preexisting cardiac risk. Nonstimulant medications such as atomoxetine are available as alternatives.

The process of finding therapies that will reduce symptoms of ADHD takes considerable time, and individuals may fail to notice improvements, at least initially.

Before prescribing any medicine or therapies, it is important to evaluate for factors that are specific to ADHD and rule out the presence of other learning or developmental disorders, to prevent negative consequences.

Health care professionals can introduce nonspecific interventions as a means of tackling complicated cases of adult ADHD, especially those that coincide with underlying medical conditions (for example, cardiovascular disease, seizure disorders, and/or eating disorders). In such cases, stimulant medications may lead to symptom exacerbation, and the health care professional should carry out a systematic evaluation (risks vs. benefits of drug classes), despite the limitations of online appointments over the course of the pandemic.

Moreover, ADHD symptoms can take on a more severe form within the context of preexisting mood and anxiety disorders. Unfortunately, these comorbidities may have a negative prognostic outcome, too, thereby increasing other health-related risk factors. Psychological interventions can be implemented via online assessments because of recent technological advances worldwide, providing a new level of confidence and social engagement. EEG-assisted biofeedback is an example of new technological modalities that may help improve the overall performance and functionality of individuals with adult ADHD.¹⁶ Numerous services and resources are available to patients and their families that can improve mental health and well-being.

Other nonpharmacologic choices also play an instrumental role in bringing harmony and organization into a patient’s life through the use of daily planners, alarms, and to-do lists. In addition, therapists can provide treatment that helps individuals get motivated and reduce their anxiety levels. Behavioral therapies support patient initiatives by increasing their productivity, activity management, and satisfaction. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and marriage counseling and family therapy are modalities that may help adults with ADHD change underlying thoughts and perceptions and develop coping skills and self-esteem.

Appropriate to the pandemic situation is another treatment, e-therapy, which includes text-based communication, video calling, and phone calls. It is a low-cost and convenient alternative for people. For some patients, traveling to a particular clinic or counseling center can be difficult, and there is a shortage of counselors worldwide, so it is beneficial to talk with a counselor on a video/phone call or through social media. It is crucial for the ADHD coach to be trained with relevant knowledge to make plans, set goals, and manage a patient’s schedule of activities. For the counselor, sharing tips based on personal experience and making the appropriate suggestions allows adults with ADHD to stay motivated and focus on the task at hand. It should be noted that counselors play an important role in reducing stress levels for those diagnosed with ADHD, allowing patients to lead productive lives and achieve career goals.

Various online support communities can provide patients and their parents with educational resources, to address issues connected to ADHD in a professional manner.¹⁷

The road to treatment success

Any delays in treating adults with ADHD can lead to a frustrating situation in which the entire family will be affected. As stated earlier, numerous support groups are available to adults with ADHD, and some of those groups can offer valuable tips about addressing stress management and the diverse roles that parents and family members may play in patient care.¹⁸ These groups provide a network for people to exchange ideas and recommend strategies. Online support groups may connect patients directly with key opinion leaders and health care providers.

Individuals with ADHD often experience problems with organization and concentration – especially within the context of the pandemic – and receiving guidance from counselors will provide an opportunity to learn valuable coping strategies and manage symptoms, recognizing and mitigating any mood swings associated with anxiety or depression that emerge alongside their ADHD. Psychotherapy is instrumental in patient care, and individuals with adult ADHD should be taught to acknowledge the role of medications (for example, neglect, divert, or self-medicate). A holistic approach to managing ADHD symptoms is necessary for optimal functioning and independence.
 

Dr. Aman is a faculty member in the biology department of City Colleges of Chicago. She is a postdoctoral researcher at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF), Montreal; a fellow, medical staff development, from the American Academy of Medical Management; and a Masters Online Teacher, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Aman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the IMCHF, Montreal, and is based in New York. He is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Karama is a psychiatrist at the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal. He is an assistant professor at the department of psychiatry, McGill University, also in Montreal. He has no disclosures. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He has no disclosures.

References

1. J Atten Disord. 2020. doi: 10.1177/1087054720943271.

2. ADDitude Magazine. 2020 Jul 23.

3. Management of ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says. 2007 Oct 9. Guilford Press.

4. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 14;369(20):1935-44.

5. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63 Suppl 12:29-35.

6. J Atten Dis. 2015 Jan 12. doi: 10.1177/1087054144566076.

7. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Oct;292. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113345.

8. Case Rep Cardiol. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/2343691.

9. Curr Diab Rep. 2019 Jun 27;19(8):46. doi: 10.1007/s11892-019-1174-x.

10. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014 Mar;16(3):436. doi: 10.1007/s/11920-013-0436-6.

11. Current Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;13(12):e3-4.

12. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(40). doi: 10.1186/s/12888-020-02707-9.

13. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016 Mar;30(2):252–62.

14. ADDitude Magazine. 2017 Apr 6.

15. Harv Mental Health Letter. 2009 Nov.

16. MGM J Med Sci. 2020 Jul 17(3):161-2.

17. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 7.

18. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020 Dec;51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101845.

As some countries brace for yet another possible surge in the COVID-19 pandemic – particularly among young adults who have not yet been vaccinated – clinicians should remain wary of the cardinal symptoms of adult ADHD.

Research from an Israeli study shows that individuals with unmedicated ADHD are 52% more likely to test positive for the virus.^1,2

The symptoms of ADHD, including impulsiveness and inability to follow directions, combined with the tendency to leave adults with ADHD on their own to sort out COVID-19–related protocols – make these individuals susceptible to exposure.

As we know, ADHD is a condition characterized by a pervasive pattern of impulsivity and/or inattention, which greatly reduces organizational capabilities by interfering at the developmental level.³ Other key symptoms include short attention span, hyperactivity, restlessness, difficulty in prioritizing tasks, and an absence of time awareness. Symptom presentation of ADHD is contingent upon the nature of the individual’s overall mental health and etiologic issues that may be traced back to the brain’s development.⁴

Diagnosing ADHD in adults is relatively difficult, because a formal diagnosis generally requires symptoms to show up between the ages of 6 and 12.⁵ Also, clinicians can interview parents and family members to assess whether the classical features of ADHD were present in childhood for those suspected of having the condition.
 

Early vs. late presentation

Among the preschool population, it has been observed that emerging ADHD symptoms may progress with time or remain relatively constant with respect to the activities that children partake in. In some instances, impulsive behavior, especially compared with other symptoms, might be identified quickly by the attentive parent or caregiver. However, when ADHD appears in adulthood, it is possible that prior ADHD symptoms escaped detection – only to be diagnosed later in life because of varying presentations and the increased organizational demands of adulthood.

Meanwhile, diagnosis in adolescence can bring a different set of challenges to the forefront as teenagers face problems with self-management and responsibilities of daily living. These young people must cope with academic⁶ and social pressures – and a host of new societal expectations.

It is essential to understand how all of those societal factors have affected ADHD and its aspects, especially within the context of COVID-19. The coronavirus has introduced myriad challenges at the global level. Individuals with ADHD exhibit neurodevelopmental and corollary attention deficit issues that make them more susceptible to environmental stressors. Physical distancing practices might aggravate existing behavioral problems.
 

Distance forced by pandemic offers challenges

Despite the widespread adoption of telemedicine during the pandemic, some physicians think that the delivery of optimal care and the ability to adequately address patients’ health-related concerns have been compromised. Certainly, in the case of addressing the needs of patients with ADHD or related learning disorders, in-person examinations and clinical visits are best.

That is also the case for ADHD patients with comorbid sleep disorders. For those patients, it might be prudent to explore lifestyle changes (for example, improvements in sleep hygiene practices) before resorting to the use of pharmacologic agents such as hypnotics and melatonin. Along similar lines, the European ADHD Guideline Group (EAGG) advises the use of pharmacotherapy after the successful completion of a physical exam; patients already adhering to a treatment plan should continue therapy without interruption. Clinicians caring for patients with adult ADHD have faced a dilemma because treatment breaks increase the likelihood of illnesses resulting from the pandemic. Also, the inability to conduct treatment in person because of the pandemic raises concerns about pharmacotherapy.

The pandemic has affected the course of pediatric care and also has presented new challenges for adolescents as they begin to tackle unique problems related to their health concerns. In prepandemic times, teachers played integral roles in the diagnostic process, because they were able to readily identify children and teenagers with mental and physical challenges. In stark contrast, connecting with students online may not allow teachers to identify skill deficits in young patients or in adults with ADHD.

Furthermore, adults with ADHD and medical comorbidities may be at increased risk of disease exposure directly resulting from an inability to address their social and/or emotional well-being adequately. The social distancing and other mitigation measures advised by public health experts ensure safety and protection but also can present numerous hurdles for children, teenagers, adults – and their respective families.

Individuals with adult ADHD and other psychiatric disorders may downplay their psychological distress⁷ [for example, sleep dysfunction, issues concerning activities of daily living], and view it as being the natural product of the COVID-19 environment. As a result of their misconceptions, they may avoid increasing their medication dose to control emergent symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity, instead opting to manage stress without aid from health care professionals. The absence of patient-provider interactivity and the integration of telemedicine has introduced unnecessary obstacles with respect to medication management and therapy as well as general access to expert advice. It is of utmost importance for clinicians to identify at-risk patients and reeducate the adult ADHD patient on issues concerning medication intake and psychological wellness.

Individuals with developmental disorders may experience numerous setbacks when trying to navigate their environments. The lack of correct feedback, supervision, and guidance may adversely affect adults with ADHD, contributing toward a lack of self-esteem and social awareness.

Individuals with adult ADHD are more likely than are their younger counterparts to have medical comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease⁸ and type 2 diabetes,⁹ so it is crucial to prescribe dietary instructions to patients. Sometimes patients with adult ADHD lack support in the form of acceptance by family and peers, so it is critical for the patient to come to terms with his/her condition and seek professional help, incorporating effective strategies wherever needed to maintain day-to-day functioning.

Other possible comorbidities

There can be risk factors associated with isolation of adults who have depression and/or anxiety, poor eating habits, and maladaptive behaviors. Other adverse health-related issues may include substance use disorder.¹⁰ Drug use suppresses developmental growth and may induce ADHD symptom exacerbation. Consistent with Khantzian’s self-medication hypothesis, among individuals with ADHD, including those who lack a formal diagnosis, there is a tendency to gravitate toward illicit substances, in particular, stimulants.¹¹

We also know that adolescents are known to engage in normal risk-taking and social experimentation. Given that, the notion of boundary setting becomes a complicated affair during a pandemic. Adults may no longer be involved in the same types of risk-taking behaviors, but enforced self-isolation coupled with unchecked consumption of various social medial platforms continue to take a toll on personal development. Socialization plays an enormous role in maintaining psychological health, and social media is no substitute for in-person interactions. Such platforms can reduce mental growth opportunities and affect ADHD adults unfavorably.

For instance, it has been reported that women with adult ADHD are more likely to present with negative cognitive biases and symptoms of anxiety as a function of social media use.^12,13 As clinicians, we should recommend introducing activities with the aim of enhancing self-acceptance, mindfulness, and the ability to engage in healthy lifestyles. A holistic framework that focuses on psychological wellness and physical fitness will ensure treatment success. Medication management may prove to be a challenge because of differences in dosing, response schedules, and agreed-upon diagnostic criteria used for young patients, compared with those needed for adults.
 

Treatment strategies

Before the pandemic, researchers were observing an increase globally in the ADHD diagnosis,¹⁴ and clinicians have been exploring the efficacy of select medications, sometimes with limited success.¹⁵ Stimulant medication, combined with behavioral interventions, is supported by evidenced-based medicine and is the treatment of choice for childhood ADHD.

The stimulant remedy considered to be the most efficacious for adult ADHD is methylphenidate or dextroamphetamine.

However, be sure to proceed with caution and prepare a thorough work-up, because there can be cardiovascular risk factors associated with these medications with a pronounced increase in heart rate and blood pressure.

Stimulant medications are known to increase the risk of stroke or myocardial infarction for individuals with preexisting cardiovascular anomalies or structural anomalies. The American Heart Association no longer recommends a baseline EKG before commencing stimulant therapy with the exception of preexisting cardiac risk. Nonstimulant medications such as atomoxetine are available as alternatives.

The process of finding therapies that will reduce symptoms of ADHD takes considerable time, and individuals may fail to notice improvements, at least initially.

Before prescribing any medicine or therapies, it is important to evaluate for factors that are specific to ADHD and rule out the presence of other learning or developmental disorders, to prevent negative consequences.

Health care professionals can introduce nonspecific interventions as a means of tackling complicated cases of adult ADHD, especially those that coincide with underlying medical conditions (for example, cardiovascular disease, seizure disorders, and/or eating disorders). In such cases, stimulant medications may lead to symptom exacerbation, and the health care professional should carry out a systematic evaluation (risks vs. benefits of drug classes), despite the limitations of online appointments over the course of the pandemic.

Moreover, ADHD symptoms can take on a more severe form within the context of preexisting mood and anxiety disorders. Unfortunately, these comorbidities may have a negative prognostic outcome, too, thereby increasing other health-related risk factors. Psychological interventions can be implemented via online assessments because of recent technological advances worldwide, providing a new level of confidence and social engagement. EEG-assisted biofeedback is an example of new technological modalities that may help improve the overall performance and functionality of individuals with adult ADHD.¹⁶ Numerous services and resources are available to patients and their families that can improve mental health and well-being.

Other nonpharmacologic choices also play an instrumental role in bringing harmony and organization into a patient’s life through the use of daily planners, alarms, and to-do lists. In addition, therapists can provide treatment that helps individuals get motivated and reduce their anxiety levels. Behavioral therapies support patient initiatives by increasing their productivity, activity management, and satisfaction. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and marriage counseling and family therapy are modalities that may help adults with ADHD change underlying thoughts and perceptions and develop coping skills and self-esteem.

Appropriate to the pandemic situation is another treatment, e-therapy, which includes text-based communication, video calling, and phone calls. It is a low-cost and convenient alternative for people. For some patients, traveling to a particular clinic or counseling center can be difficult, and there is a shortage of counselors worldwide, so it is beneficial to talk with a counselor on a video/phone call or through social media. It is crucial for the ADHD coach to be trained with relevant knowledge to make plans, set goals, and manage a patient’s schedule of activities. For the counselor, sharing tips based on personal experience and making the appropriate suggestions allows adults with ADHD to stay motivated and focus on the task at hand. It should be noted that counselors play an important role in reducing stress levels for those diagnosed with ADHD, allowing patients to lead productive lives and achieve career goals.

Various online support communities can provide patients and their parents with educational resources, to address issues connected to ADHD in a professional manner.¹⁷

The road to treatment success

Any delays in treating adults with ADHD can lead to a frustrating situation in which the entire family will be affected. As stated earlier, numerous support groups are available to adults with ADHD, and some of those groups can offer valuable tips about addressing stress management and the diverse roles that parents and family members may play in patient care.¹⁸ These groups provide a network for people to exchange ideas and recommend strategies. Online support groups may connect patients directly with key opinion leaders and health care providers.

Individuals with ADHD often experience problems with organization and concentration – especially within the context of the pandemic – and receiving guidance from counselors will provide an opportunity to learn valuable coping strategies and manage symptoms, recognizing and mitigating any mood swings associated with anxiety or depression that emerge alongside their ADHD. Psychotherapy is instrumental in patient care, and individuals with adult ADHD should be taught to acknowledge the role of medications (for example, neglect, divert, or self-medicate). A holistic approach to managing ADHD symptoms is necessary for optimal functioning and independence.
 

Dr. Aman is a faculty member in the biology department of City Colleges of Chicago. She is a postdoctoral researcher at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF), Montreal; a fellow, medical staff development, from the American Academy of Medical Management; and a Masters Online Teacher, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Aman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the IMCHF, Montreal, and is based in New York. He is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Karama is a psychiatrist at the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal. He is an assistant professor at the department of psychiatry, McGill University, also in Montreal. He has no disclosures. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He has no disclosures.

References

1. J Atten Disord. 2020. doi: 10.1177/1087054720943271.

2. ADDitude Magazine. 2020 Jul 23.

3. Management of ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says. 2007 Oct 9. Guilford Press.

4. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 14;369(20):1935-44.

5. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63 Suppl 12:29-35.

6. J Atten Dis. 2015 Jan 12. doi: 10.1177/1087054144566076.

7. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Oct;292. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113345.

8. Case Rep Cardiol. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/2343691.

9. Curr Diab Rep. 2019 Jun 27;19(8):46. doi: 10.1007/s11892-019-1174-x.

10. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014 Mar;16(3):436. doi: 10.1007/s/11920-013-0436-6.

11. Current Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;13(12):e3-4.

12. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(40). doi: 10.1186/s/12888-020-02707-9.

13. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016 Mar;30(2):252–62.

14. ADDitude Magazine. 2017 Apr 6.

15. Harv Mental Health Letter. 2009 Nov.

16. MGM J Med Sci. 2020 Jul 17(3):161-2.

17. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 7.

18. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020 Dec;51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101845.

Antipsychotics may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection or lead to a milder course of illness, new research suggests.

“Counterintuitively,” the investigators noted, vulnerable people with severe mental illness “on antipsychotic treatment showed a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a likely better COVID-19 prognosis.”

“These are very interesting findings that reflect a clinical reality where we see few patients with severe COVID-19, despite the presence of various risk factors,” study investigator Manuel Canal-Rivero, PhD, clinical psychologist, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Sevilla, Spain, said in a news release.

“The number of COVID-19 patients is lower than expected among this group of people and in cases where a proven infection does occur, the evolution is benign and does not reach a life-threatening clinical situation. These data as a whole seem to point to the protective effect of the medication,” Dr. Canal-Rivero added.

The study was published online as a letter to the editor February 19, 2021, in Schizophrenia Research.
 

A ‘striking’ finding

The researchers assessed the prevalence and prognosis of COVID-19 in 698 patients with serious mental disorders (SMDs) receiving treatment with long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. The non-SMD population included the catchment area population of 557,576 individuals.

From February to November 2020, 4.1% of the non-SMD population were infected with SARS-CoV-2 versus just 1.3% of the SMD population (9 of 698 patients). All but one patient with SMD had asymptomatic illness (8 of 9, 89%). Accurate information on asymptomatic illness in the non-SMD population was not available.

There were also fewer hospital admissions in the SMD population (0% vs. 8.5%), ICU admissions (0% vs. 0.9%) and deaths because of COVID-19 (0% vs. 1.1%), although the differences were not statistically significant.

In related research, the same investigators found that many of the genes whose expression is altered by SARS-CoV-2 infection are significantly down-regulated by antipsychotic drugs.

“In a striking way, we have shown how antipsychotics reduce the activation of genes involved in many of the inflammatory and immunological pathways associated with the severity of COVID-19 infection,” Benedicto Crespo-Facorro, MD, PhD, University of Sevilla, who led the study, said in the news release.

“Although this finding requires replication, the discovery could be very significant because the treatment of COVID-19 with drugs originally indicated for unrelated clinical situations, that is to say drug repositioning, has been shown to be an interesting source of effective treatments for COVID-19 patients,” he added.
 

Antiviral properties?

In a comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor, department of psychiatry, New York University, said the findings are “fascinating” and should be explored further.

While the findings on long-acting injectable antipsychotic treatment “seem counterintuitive at first, they are in line with other studies,” said Dr. Ahmad, who heads the inpatient psychiatry unit at Bellevue Hospital Center and is founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.

“We know that certain antipsychotics can suppress the expression of inflammatory cytokines (thereby theoretically preventing cytokine storm) and antidepressant medications appear to activate key cellular proteins that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses for replication,” explained Dr. Ahmad, who was not associated with the study.

For example, as reported by this news organization, a preliminary study published in 2020 showed that early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine prevented clinical deterioration in adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19.

The antipsychotic aripiprazole has also shown potential to treat severe COVID-19 infection.

“Consequently, there appears to be a possible explanation as to why these drugs afford patients with severe mental disorders increased protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Ahmad said in an interview.

However, he cautioned, there are several factors at play that could influence the results. Therefore, more research is needed before drawing any firm conclusions.

“Still, the possibility that psychiatric medications may have antiviral properties is a tremendous development and I really hope that additional studies confirm the preliminary findings,” Dr. Ahmad said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors and Dr. Ahmad disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antipsychotics may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection or lead to a milder course of illness, new research suggests.

“Counterintuitively,” the investigators noted, vulnerable people with severe mental illness “on antipsychotic treatment showed a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a likely better COVID-19 prognosis.”

“These are very interesting findings that reflect a clinical reality where we see few patients with severe COVID-19, despite the presence of various risk factors,” study investigator Manuel Canal-Rivero, PhD, clinical psychologist, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Sevilla, Spain, said in a news release.

“The number of COVID-19 patients is lower than expected among this group of people and in cases where a proven infection does occur, the evolution is benign and does not reach a life-threatening clinical situation. These data as a whole seem to point to the protective effect of the medication,” Dr. Canal-Rivero added.

The study was published online as a letter to the editor February 19, 2021, in Schizophrenia Research.
 

A ‘striking’ finding

The researchers assessed the prevalence and prognosis of COVID-19 in 698 patients with serious mental disorders (SMDs) receiving treatment with long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. The non-SMD population included the catchment area population of 557,576 individuals.

From February to November 2020, 4.1% of the non-SMD population were infected with SARS-CoV-2 versus just 1.3% of the SMD population (9 of 698 patients). All but one patient with SMD had asymptomatic illness (8 of 9, 89%). Accurate information on asymptomatic illness in the non-SMD population was not available.

There were also fewer hospital admissions in the SMD population (0% vs. 8.5%), ICU admissions (0% vs. 0.9%) and deaths because of COVID-19 (0% vs. 1.1%), although the differences were not statistically significant.

In related research, the same investigators found that many of the genes whose expression is altered by SARS-CoV-2 infection are significantly down-regulated by antipsychotic drugs.

“In a striking way, we have shown how antipsychotics reduce the activation of genes involved in many of the inflammatory and immunological pathways associated with the severity of COVID-19 infection,” Benedicto Crespo-Facorro, MD, PhD, University of Sevilla, who led the study, said in the news release.

“Although this finding requires replication, the discovery could be very significant because the treatment of COVID-19 with drugs originally indicated for unrelated clinical situations, that is to say drug repositioning, has been shown to be an interesting source of effective treatments for COVID-19 patients,” he added.
 

Antiviral properties?

In a comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor, department of psychiatry, New York University, said the findings are “fascinating” and should be explored further.

While the findings on long-acting injectable antipsychotic treatment “seem counterintuitive at first, they are in line with other studies,” said Dr. Ahmad, who heads the inpatient psychiatry unit at Bellevue Hospital Center and is founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.

“We know that certain antipsychotics can suppress the expression of inflammatory cytokines (thereby theoretically preventing cytokine storm) and antidepressant medications appear to activate key cellular proteins that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses for replication,” explained Dr. Ahmad, who was not associated with the study.

For example, as reported by this news organization, a preliminary study published in 2020 showed that early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine prevented clinical deterioration in adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19.

The antipsychotic aripiprazole has also shown potential to treat severe COVID-19 infection.

“Consequently, there appears to be a possible explanation as to why these drugs afford patients with severe mental disorders increased protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Ahmad said in an interview.

However, he cautioned, there are several factors at play that could influence the results. Therefore, more research is needed before drawing any firm conclusions.

“Still, the possibility that psychiatric medications may have antiviral properties is a tremendous development and I really hope that additional studies confirm the preliminary findings,” Dr. Ahmad said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors and Dr. Ahmad disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antipsychotics may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection or lead to a milder course of illness, new research suggests.

“Counterintuitively,” the investigators noted, vulnerable people with severe mental illness “on antipsychotic treatment showed a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a likely better COVID-19 prognosis.”

“These are very interesting findings that reflect a clinical reality where we see few patients with severe COVID-19, despite the presence of various risk factors,” study investigator Manuel Canal-Rivero, PhD, clinical psychologist, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Sevilla, Spain, said in a news release.

“The number of COVID-19 patients is lower than expected among this group of people and in cases where a proven infection does occur, the evolution is benign and does not reach a life-threatening clinical situation. These data as a whole seem to point to the protective effect of the medication,” Dr. Canal-Rivero added.

The study was published online as a letter to the editor February 19, 2021, in Schizophrenia Research.
 

A ‘striking’ finding

The researchers assessed the prevalence and prognosis of COVID-19 in 698 patients with serious mental disorders (SMDs) receiving treatment with long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. The non-SMD population included the catchment area population of 557,576 individuals.

From February to November 2020, 4.1% of the non-SMD population were infected with SARS-CoV-2 versus just 1.3% of the SMD population (9 of 698 patients). All but one patient with SMD had asymptomatic illness (8 of 9, 89%). Accurate information on asymptomatic illness in the non-SMD population was not available.

There were also fewer hospital admissions in the SMD population (0% vs. 8.5%), ICU admissions (0% vs. 0.9%) and deaths because of COVID-19 (0% vs. 1.1%), although the differences were not statistically significant.

In related research, the same investigators found that many of the genes whose expression is altered by SARS-CoV-2 infection are significantly down-regulated by antipsychotic drugs.

“In a striking way, we have shown how antipsychotics reduce the activation of genes involved in many of the inflammatory and immunological pathways associated with the severity of COVID-19 infection,” Benedicto Crespo-Facorro, MD, PhD, University of Sevilla, who led the study, said in the news release.

“Although this finding requires replication, the discovery could be very significant because the treatment of COVID-19 with drugs originally indicated for unrelated clinical situations, that is to say drug repositioning, has been shown to be an interesting source of effective treatments for COVID-19 patients,” he added.
 

Antiviral properties?

In a comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor, department of psychiatry, New York University, said the findings are “fascinating” and should be explored further.

While the findings on long-acting injectable antipsychotic treatment “seem counterintuitive at first, they are in line with other studies,” said Dr. Ahmad, who heads the inpatient psychiatry unit at Bellevue Hospital Center and is founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.

“We know that certain antipsychotics can suppress the expression of inflammatory cytokines (thereby theoretically preventing cytokine storm) and antidepressant medications appear to activate key cellular proteins that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses for replication,” explained Dr. Ahmad, who was not associated with the study.

For example, as reported by this news organization, a preliminary study published in 2020 showed that early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine prevented clinical deterioration in adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19.

The antipsychotic aripiprazole has also shown potential to treat severe COVID-19 infection.

“Consequently, there appears to be a possible explanation as to why these drugs afford patients with severe mental disorders increased protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Ahmad said in an interview.

However, he cautioned, there are several factors at play that could influence the results. Therefore, more research is needed before drawing any firm conclusions.

“Still, the possibility that psychiatric medications may have antiviral properties is a tremendous development and I really hope that additional studies confirm the preliminary findings,” Dr. Ahmad said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors and Dr. Ahmad disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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