Clinical Psychiatry News

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.

Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.

Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.

Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.

After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.

Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.

The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.

A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.

The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.

Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.

Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
 

Urgent need for oral agents

Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.

“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.

Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.

“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.

Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.

There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.

“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.

She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.

“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.

Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.

One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.

Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.

“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”

But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.

“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
 

Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat

Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.

“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”

Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.

“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.

Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.

The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.

The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.

The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.

The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.

And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.

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

New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.

Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.

Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.

Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.

After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.

Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.

The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.

A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.

The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.

Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.

Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
 

Urgent need for oral agents

Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.

“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.

Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.

“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.

Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.

There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.

“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.

She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.

“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.

Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.

One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.

Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.

“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”

But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.

“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
 

Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat

Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.

“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”

Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.

“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.

Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.

The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.

The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.

The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.

The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.

And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.

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

New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.

Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.

Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.

Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.

After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.

Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.

The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.

A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.

The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.

Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.

Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
 

Urgent need for oral agents

Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.

“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.

Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.

“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.

Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.

There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.

“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.

She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.

“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.

Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.

One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.

Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.

“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”

But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.

“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
 

Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat

Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.

“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”

Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.

“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.

Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.

The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.

The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.

The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.

The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.

And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.

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

An eye-opening moment during March 7’s Meghan Markle/Prince Harry interview with Oprah Winfrey was Markle’s admission that, before the royal couple moved from the U.K., she was suicidal and had nowhere to turn for help.

For health care practitioners, this has resurfaced the debate over universal suicidality screening and discussion about what should happen when patients screen positive.

The American Psychiatric Association reports suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, but the second leading cause of death in people age 10-34 years old.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2019, suicide rates dropped for the first time in 14 years. However, it is widely expected that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated isolation, loneliness, and stress, the next round of data will show a surge in suicide deaths.

Individuals’ mental health “has been deteriorating” since COVID-19, said Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health.

“I can see it in my office. People who didn’t necessarily complain about anxiety and depression before or who had been stable for many years are decompensating now,” Dr. De Faria said in an interview.

Although other parts of the interview may have been controversial, said Dr. De Faria, Markle’s disclosure has opened up a much-needed discussion.

“I’m all for people talking about mental health, and I commend [Markle] for sharing her struggle and putting it out there,” she added.

In a perfect world, she noted, there would be universal suicide screening by all medical professionals.

However, Dr. De Faria, associate clinical professor of psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, acknowledged that from a resource standpoint this is not a pragmatic solution.

Primary care physicians are often the frontline defense for suicide prevention, noted Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder and chief organizer of the Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline exclusively for doctors staffed by volunteer psychiatrists.   

“I believe our general practitioner colleagues, our family medicine colleagues are the ones who are going to be seeing the majority of mental health concerns or illnesses because of the stigma that is often there from seeing a psychiatrist,” Dr. Masood said in an interview.

Dr. De Faria noted that the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) for mental health offers a simple screen that includes two key questions. It asks: Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?

• Little interest or pleasure in doing things.
• Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.

However, both Dr. De Faria and Dr. Masood emphasized that individualized follow-up questions and follow-up care are equally important.

Unlike Dr. De Faria, who prefers universal screening but understands the challenges of implementing it, Dr. Masood favors targeted screening.

“For physicians, the whole point of what we do is to save lives. To talk to somebody about the complete opposite and to ask, ‘Are you planning on ending your life?’ is very jarring. But for the patient, that may be their only outlet. A primary care provider may be the only professional that they talk to about their mental health,” said Dr. Masood.

Patients can easily say “no” to suicidal ideation questions from a general screen, but targeted, probing questions let patients know that they’re being heard and seen beyond their physical examination, she added.

She also suggested that clinicians ask open-ended questions of those patients who are struggling.

Dr. Masood noted that having a plan in place before screening a patient is especially key.

“I’d argue that one of the subconscious reasons why so many doctors do not ask the question [about suicidality] is because if you ask it, you have to be ready for the answer and to know what you’d do,” she said.

All primary care physicians should have “mental health professionals as resources in your back pocket” in order to have a referral ready to give to patients in need, she said.

“Outside of your clinic time, have a rapport with your local psychiatrist or therapist and know where to send someone who is suicidal,” Dr. Masood said. “Know what is in your local area so you’ll already know how to implement your plan.”

Dr. Masood also recommended:

• Informing staff about protocols for patients with suicidal thoughts who need to go to the hospital for evaluation.
• Creating a safe space in the clinic/office, such as an unused exam room, where patients can wait for next steps.
• Having staff inform a patient’s emergency contact about the situation.
• Trying for a “warm handoff,” where the emergency contact takes the patient to the nearest crisis center and having staff call ahead to let them know to expect the patient.
• If the patient has no emergency contact, following your state’s involuntary crisis response protocol, which involves calling 911 for emergency services.  

In addition, the APA’s suicide prevention page includes a long list of helpful resources for patients, families, and physicians.

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

An eye-opening moment during March 7’s Meghan Markle/Prince Harry interview with Oprah Winfrey was Markle’s admission that, before the royal couple moved from the U.K., she was suicidal and had nowhere to turn for help.

For health care practitioners, this has resurfaced the debate over universal suicidality screening and discussion about what should happen when patients screen positive.

The American Psychiatric Association reports suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, but the second leading cause of death in people age 10-34 years old.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2019, suicide rates dropped for the first time in 14 years. However, it is widely expected that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated isolation, loneliness, and stress, the next round of data will show a surge in suicide deaths.

Individuals’ mental health “has been deteriorating” since COVID-19, said Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health.

“I can see it in my office. People who didn’t necessarily complain about anxiety and depression before or who had been stable for many years are decompensating now,” Dr. De Faria said in an interview.

Although other parts of the interview may have been controversial, said Dr. De Faria, Markle’s disclosure has opened up a much-needed discussion.

“I’m all for people talking about mental health, and I commend [Markle] for sharing her struggle and putting it out there,” she added.

In a perfect world, she noted, there would be universal suicide screening by all medical professionals.

However, Dr. De Faria, associate clinical professor of psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, acknowledged that from a resource standpoint this is not a pragmatic solution.

Primary care physicians are often the frontline defense for suicide prevention, noted Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder and chief organizer of the Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline exclusively for doctors staffed by volunteer psychiatrists.   

“I believe our general practitioner colleagues, our family medicine colleagues are the ones who are going to be seeing the majority of mental health concerns or illnesses because of the stigma that is often there from seeing a psychiatrist,” Dr. Masood said in an interview.

Dr. De Faria noted that the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) for mental health offers a simple screen that includes two key questions. It asks: Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?

• Little interest or pleasure in doing things.
• Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.

However, both Dr. De Faria and Dr. Masood emphasized that individualized follow-up questions and follow-up care are equally important.

Unlike Dr. De Faria, who prefers universal screening but understands the challenges of implementing it, Dr. Masood favors targeted screening.

“For physicians, the whole point of what we do is to save lives. To talk to somebody about the complete opposite and to ask, ‘Are you planning on ending your life?’ is very jarring. But for the patient, that may be their only outlet. A primary care provider may be the only professional that they talk to about their mental health,” said Dr. Masood.

Patients can easily say “no” to suicidal ideation questions from a general screen, but targeted, probing questions let patients know that they’re being heard and seen beyond their physical examination, she added.

She also suggested that clinicians ask open-ended questions of those patients who are struggling.

Dr. Masood noted that having a plan in place before screening a patient is especially key.

“I’d argue that one of the subconscious reasons why so many doctors do not ask the question [about suicidality] is because if you ask it, you have to be ready for the answer and to know what you’d do,” she said.

All primary care physicians should have “mental health professionals as resources in your back pocket” in order to have a referral ready to give to patients in need, she said.

“Outside of your clinic time, have a rapport with your local psychiatrist or therapist and know where to send someone who is suicidal,” Dr. Masood said. “Know what is in your local area so you’ll already know how to implement your plan.”

Dr. Masood also recommended:

• Informing staff about protocols for patients with suicidal thoughts who need to go to the hospital for evaluation.
• Creating a safe space in the clinic/office, such as an unused exam room, where patients can wait for next steps.
• Having staff inform a patient’s emergency contact about the situation.
• Trying for a “warm handoff,” where the emergency contact takes the patient to the nearest crisis center and having staff call ahead to let them know to expect the patient.
• If the patient has no emergency contact, following your state’s involuntary crisis response protocol, which involves calling 911 for emergency services.  

In addition, the APA’s suicide prevention page includes a long list of helpful resources for patients, families, and physicians.

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

An eye-opening moment during March 7’s Meghan Markle/Prince Harry interview with Oprah Winfrey was Markle’s admission that, before the royal couple moved from the U.K., she was suicidal and had nowhere to turn for help.

For health care practitioners, this has resurfaced the debate over universal suicidality screening and discussion about what should happen when patients screen positive.

The American Psychiatric Association reports suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, but the second leading cause of death in people age 10-34 years old.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2019, suicide rates dropped for the first time in 14 years. However, it is widely expected that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated isolation, loneliness, and stress, the next round of data will show a surge in suicide deaths.

Individuals’ mental health “has been deteriorating” since COVID-19, said Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health.

“I can see it in my office. People who didn’t necessarily complain about anxiety and depression before or who had been stable for many years are decompensating now,” Dr. De Faria said in an interview.

Although other parts of the interview may have been controversial, said Dr. De Faria, Markle’s disclosure has opened up a much-needed discussion.

“I’m all for people talking about mental health, and I commend [Markle] for sharing her struggle and putting it out there,” she added.

In a perfect world, she noted, there would be universal suicide screening by all medical professionals.

However, Dr. De Faria, associate clinical professor of psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, acknowledged that from a resource standpoint this is not a pragmatic solution.

Primary care physicians are often the frontline defense for suicide prevention, noted Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder and chief organizer of the Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline exclusively for doctors staffed by volunteer psychiatrists.   

“I believe our general practitioner colleagues, our family medicine colleagues are the ones who are going to be seeing the majority of mental health concerns or illnesses because of the stigma that is often there from seeing a psychiatrist,” Dr. Masood said in an interview.

Dr. De Faria noted that the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) for mental health offers a simple screen that includes two key questions. It asks: Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?

• Little interest or pleasure in doing things.
• Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.

However, both Dr. De Faria and Dr. Masood emphasized that individualized follow-up questions and follow-up care are equally important.

Unlike Dr. De Faria, who prefers universal screening but understands the challenges of implementing it, Dr. Masood favors targeted screening.

“For physicians, the whole point of what we do is to save lives. To talk to somebody about the complete opposite and to ask, ‘Are you planning on ending your life?’ is very jarring. But for the patient, that may be their only outlet. A primary care provider may be the only professional that they talk to about their mental health,” said Dr. Masood.

Patients can easily say “no” to suicidal ideation questions from a general screen, but targeted, probing questions let patients know that they’re being heard and seen beyond their physical examination, she added.

She also suggested that clinicians ask open-ended questions of those patients who are struggling.

Dr. Masood noted that having a plan in place before screening a patient is especially key.

“I’d argue that one of the subconscious reasons why so many doctors do not ask the question [about suicidality] is because if you ask it, you have to be ready for the answer and to know what you’d do,” she said.

All primary care physicians should have “mental health professionals as resources in your back pocket” in order to have a referral ready to give to patients in need, she said.

“Outside of your clinic time, have a rapport with your local psychiatrist or therapist and know where to send someone who is suicidal,” Dr. Masood said. “Know what is in your local area so you’ll already know how to implement your plan.”

Dr. Masood also recommended:

• Informing staff about protocols for patients with suicidal thoughts who need to go to the hospital for evaluation.
• Creating a safe space in the clinic/office, such as an unused exam room, where patients can wait for next steps.
• Having staff inform a patient’s emergency contact about the situation.
• Trying for a “warm handoff,” where the emergency contact takes the patient to the nearest crisis center and having staff call ahead to let them know to expect the patient.
• If the patient has no emergency contact, following your state’s involuntary crisis response protocol, which involves calling 911 for emergency services.  

In addition, the APA’s suicide prevention page includes a long list of helpful resources for patients, families, and physicians.

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

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

Veterans who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) are significantly more likely to develop insomnia and other sleep problems years later compared to their counterparts who have not suffered a brain injury, a new study shows.

Results of a large longitudinal study show that those with TBI were about 40% more likely to develop insomnia, sleep apnea, excessive daytime sleepiness, or another sleep disorder in later years, after adjusting for demographics and medical and psychiatric conditions.

Interestingly, the association with sleep disorders was strongest among those with mild TBI versus a more severe brain injury.

The study showed that the risk for sleep disorders increased up to 14 years after a brain injury, an indicator that “clinicians should really pay attention to sleep disorders in TBI patients both in the short term and the long term,” study investigator Yue Leng, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 3 in Neurology.
 

First long-term look

TBI is common among veterans, who may have sleep complaints or psychiatric symptoms, but previous studies into the consequences of TBI have examined the short- vs. long-term impact, said Dr. Leng.

To examine the longitudinal association between TBI and sleep disorders, the investigators examined data on 98,709 Veterans Health Administration patients diagnosed with TBI and an age-matched group of the same number of veterans who had not received such a diagnosis. The mean age of the participants was 49 years at baseline, and 11.7% were women. Of the TBI cases, 49.6% were mild.

Researchers used an exposure survey and diagnostic codes to establish TBI and its severity.

Patients with TBI were more likely to be male and were much more likely to have a psychiatric condition, such as a mood disorder (22.4% vs. 9.3%), anxiety (10.5% vs. 4.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (19.5% vs. 4.4%), or substance abuse (11.4% vs. 5.2%). They were also more likely to smoke or use tobacco (13.5% vs. 8.7%).

Researchers assessed a number of sleep disorders, including insomnia, hypersomnia disorders, narcolepsy, sleep-related breathing disorders, and sleep-related movement disorders.

During a follow-up period that averaged 5 years but ranged up to 14 years, 23.4% of veterans with TBI and 15.8% of those without TBI developed a sleep disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and income, those who had suffered a TBI were 50% more likely to develop any sleep disorder, compared with those who had not had a TBI (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.53.)

After controlling for medical conditions that included diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular disease, as well as psychiatric disorders such as mood disorders, anxiety, PTSD, substance use disorder, and tobacco use, the HR for developing a sleep disorder was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.37-1.44).

The association with TBI was stronger for some sleep disorders. Adjusted HRs were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.45-1.55) for insomnia, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.39-1.61) for hypersomnia, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.16-1.52) for sleep-related movement disorders, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.32) for sleep apnea.

It’s unclear what causes postinjury sleep problems, but it could be that TBI induces structural brain damage, or it could affect melatonin secretion or wake-promoting neurons.

Damage to arousal-promoting neurons could help explain the reason the link between TBI and sleep disorders was strongest for insomnia and hypersomnia, although the exact mechanism is unclear, said Dr. Leng.
 

Greater risk with mild TBI

Overall, the association was stronger for mild TBI than for moderate to severe TBI. This, said Dr. Leng, might be because of differences in the brain injury mechanism.

Mild TBI often involves repetitive concussive or subconcussive injuries, such as sports injuries or blast injury among active-duty military personnel. This type of injury is more likely to cause diffuse axonal injury and inflammation, whereas moderate or severe TBI is often attributable to a direct blow with more focal but severe damage, explained Dr. Leng.

She noted that veterans with mild TBI were more likely to have a psychiatric condition, but because the study controlled for such conditions, this doesn’t fully explain the stronger association between mild TBI and sleep disorders.

Further studies are needed to sort out the exact mechanisms, she said.

The association between TBI and risk for sleep disorders was reduced somewhat but was still moderate in an analysis that excluded patients who developed a sleep disorder within 2 years of a brain injury.

This analysis, said Dr. Leng, helped ensure that the sleep disorder developed after the brain injury.

The researchers could not examine the trajectory of sleep problems, so it’s not clear whether sleep problems worsen or get better over time, said Dr. Leng.

Because PTSD also leads to sleep problems, the researchers thought that having both PTSD and TBI might increase the risk for sleep problems. “But actually we found the association was pretty similar in those with, and without, PTSD, so that was kind of contrary to our hypothesis,” she said.

The new results underline the need for more screening for sleep disorders among patients with TBI, both in the short term and the long term, said Dr. Leng. “Clinicians should ask TBI patients about their sleep, and they should follow that up,” she said.

She added that long-term sleep disorders can affect a patient’s health and can lead to psychiatric problems and neurodegenerative diseases.

Depending on the type of sleep disorder, there are a number of possible treatments. For example, for patients with sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure treatment may be considered.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology; CEO, Brainsport, Team Neurologist, the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League; and past president, Florida Society of Neurology, said the study is “by far” the largest to investigate the correlation between sleep disorders and head trauma.

The design and outcome measures “were well thought out,” and the researchers “did an outstanding job in sorting through and analyzing the data,” said Dr. Conidi.

He added that he was particularly impressed with how the researchers addressed PTSD, which is highly prevalent among veterans with head trauma and is known to affect sleep.

The new results “solidify what those of us who see individuals with TBI have observed over the years: that there is a higher incidence of all types of sleep disorders” in individuals with a TBI, said Dr. Conidi.

However, he questioned the study’s use of guidelines to classify the various types of head trauma. These guidelines, he said, “are based on loss of consciousness, which we have started to move away from when classifying TBI.”

In addition, Dr. Conidi said he “would have loved to have seen” some correlation with neuroimaging studies, such as those used to assess subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and diffuse axonal injury, but that this “could be an impetus for future studies.”

In “a perfect world,” all patients with a TBI would undergo a polysomnography study in a sleep laboratory, but insurance companies now rarely cover such studies and have attempted to have clinicians shift to home sleep studies, said Dr. Conidi. “These are marginal at best for screening for sleep disorders,” he noted.

At his centers, every TBI patient is screened for sleep disorders and, whenever possible, undergoes formal evaluation in the sleep lab, he added.

The study was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Leng and Dr. Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Veterans who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) are significantly more likely to develop insomnia and other sleep problems years later compared to their counterparts who have not suffered a brain injury, a new study shows.

Results of a large longitudinal study show that those with TBI were about 40% more likely to develop insomnia, sleep apnea, excessive daytime sleepiness, or another sleep disorder in later years, after adjusting for demographics and medical and psychiatric conditions.

Interestingly, the association with sleep disorders was strongest among those with mild TBI versus a more severe brain injury.

The study showed that the risk for sleep disorders increased up to 14 years after a brain injury, an indicator that “clinicians should really pay attention to sleep disorders in TBI patients both in the short term and the long term,” study investigator Yue Leng, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 3 in Neurology.
 

First long-term look

TBI is common among veterans, who may have sleep complaints or psychiatric symptoms, but previous studies into the consequences of TBI have examined the short- vs. long-term impact, said Dr. Leng.

To examine the longitudinal association between TBI and sleep disorders, the investigators examined data on 98,709 Veterans Health Administration patients diagnosed with TBI and an age-matched group of the same number of veterans who had not received such a diagnosis. The mean age of the participants was 49 years at baseline, and 11.7% were women. Of the TBI cases, 49.6% were mild.

Researchers used an exposure survey and diagnostic codes to establish TBI and its severity.

Patients with TBI were more likely to be male and were much more likely to have a psychiatric condition, such as a mood disorder (22.4% vs. 9.3%), anxiety (10.5% vs. 4.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (19.5% vs. 4.4%), or substance abuse (11.4% vs. 5.2%). They were also more likely to smoke or use tobacco (13.5% vs. 8.7%).

Researchers assessed a number of sleep disorders, including insomnia, hypersomnia disorders, narcolepsy, sleep-related breathing disorders, and sleep-related movement disorders.

During a follow-up period that averaged 5 years but ranged up to 14 years, 23.4% of veterans with TBI and 15.8% of those without TBI developed a sleep disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and income, those who had suffered a TBI were 50% more likely to develop any sleep disorder, compared with those who had not had a TBI (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.53.)

After controlling for medical conditions that included diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular disease, as well as psychiatric disorders such as mood disorders, anxiety, PTSD, substance use disorder, and tobacco use, the HR for developing a sleep disorder was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.37-1.44).

The association with TBI was stronger for some sleep disorders. Adjusted HRs were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.45-1.55) for insomnia, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.39-1.61) for hypersomnia, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.16-1.52) for sleep-related movement disorders, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.32) for sleep apnea.

It’s unclear what causes postinjury sleep problems, but it could be that TBI induces structural brain damage, or it could affect melatonin secretion or wake-promoting neurons.

Damage to arousal-promoting neurons could help explain the reason the link between TBI and sleep disorders was strongest for insomnia and hypersomnia, although the exact mechanism is unclear, said Dr. Leng.
 

Greater risk with mild TBI

Overall, the association was stronger for mild TBI than for moderate to severe TBI. This, said Dr. Leng, might be because of differences in the brain injury mechanism.

Mild TBI often involves repetitive concussive or subconcussive injuries, such as sports injuries or blast injury among active-duty military personnel. This type of injury is more likely to cause diffuse axonal injury and inflammation, whereas moderate or severe TBI is often attributable to a direct blow with more focal but severe damage, explained Dr. Leng.

She noted that veterans with mild TBI were more likely to have a psychiatric condition, but because the study controlled for such conditions, this doesn’t fully explain the stronger association between mild TBI and sleep disorders.

Further studies are needed to sort out the exact mechanisms, she said.

The association between TBI and risk for sleep disorders was reduced somewhat but was still moderate in an analysis that excluded patients who developed a sleep disorder within 2 years of a brain injury.

This analysis, said Dr. Leng, helped ensure that the sleep disorder developed after the brain injury.

The researchers could not examine the trajectory of sleep problems, so it’s not clear whether sleep problems worsen or get better over time, said Dr. Leng.

Because PTSD also leads to sleep problems, the researchers thought that having both PTSD and TBI might increase the risk for sleep problems. “But actually we found the association was pretty similar in those with, and without, PTSD, so that was kind of contrary to our hypothesis,” she said.

The new results underline the need for more screening for sleep disorders among patients with TBI, both in the short term and the long term, said Dr. Leng. “Clinicians should ask TBI patients about their sleep, and they should follow that up,” she said.

She added that long-term sleep disorders can affect a patient’s health and can lead to psychiatric problems and neurodegenerative diseases.

Depending on the type of sleep disorder, there are a number of possible treatments. For example, for patients with sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure treatment may be considered.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology; CEO, Brainsport, Team Neurologist, the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League; and past president, Florida Society of Neurology, said the study is “by far” the largest to investigate the correlation between sleep disorders and head trauma.

The design and outcome measures “were well thought out,” and the researchers “did an outstanding job in sorting through and analyzing the data,” said Dr. Conidi.

He added that he was particularly impressed with how the researchers addressed PTSD, which is highly prevalent among veterans with head trauma and is known to affect sleep.

The new results “solidify what those of us who see individuals with TBI have observed over the years: that there is a higher incidence of all types of sleep disorders” in individuals with a TBI, said Dr. Conidi.

However, he questioned the study’s use of guidelines to classify the various types of head trauma. These guidelines, he said, “are based on loss of consciousness, which we have started to move away from when classifying TBI.”

In addition, Dr. Conidi said he “would have loved to have seen” some correlation with neuroimaging studies, such as those used to assess subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and diffuse axonal injury, but that this “could be an impetus for future studies.”

In “a perfect world,” all patients with a TBI would undergo a polysomnography study in a sleep laboratory, but insurance companies now rarely cover such studies and have attempted to have clinicians shift to home sleep studies, said Dr. Conidi. “These are marginal at best for screening for sleep disorders,” he noted.

At his centers, every TBI patient is screened for sleep disorders and, whenever possible, undergoes formal evaluation in the sleep lab, he added.

The study was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Leng and Dr. Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Veterans who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) are significantly more likely to develop insomnia and other sleep problems years later compared to their counterparts who have not suffered a brain injury, a new study shows.

Results of a large longitudinal study show that those with TBI were about 40% more likely to develop insomnia, sleep apnea, excessive daytime sleepiness, or another sleep disorder in later years, after adjusting for demographics and medical and psychiatric conditions.

Interestingly, the association with sleep disorders was strongest among those with mild TBI versus a more severe brain injury.

The study showed that the risk for sleep disorders increased up to 14 years after a brain injury, an indicator that “clinicians should really pay attention to sleep disorders in TBI patients both in the short term and the long term,” study investigator Yue Leng, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 3 in Neurology.
 

First long-term look

TBI is common among veterans, who may have sleep complaints or psychiatric symptoms, but previous studies into the consequences of TBI have examined the short- vs. long-term impact, said Dr. Leng.

To examine the longitudinal association between TBI and sleep disorders, the investigators examined data on 98,709 Veterans Health Administration patients diagnosed with TBI and an age-matched group of the same number of veterans who had not received such a diagnosis. The mean age of the participants was 49 years at baseline, and 11.7% were women. Of the TBI cases, 49.6% were mild.

Researchers used an exposure survey and diagnostic codes to establish TBI and its severity.

Patients with TBI were more likely to be male and were much more likely to have a psychiatric condition, such as a mood disorder (22.4% vs. 9.3%), anxiety (10.5% vs. 4.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (19.5% vs. 4.4%), or substance abuse (11.4% vs. 5.2%). They were also more likely to smoke or use tobacco (13.5% vs. 8.7%).

Researchers assessed a number of sleep disorders, including insomnia, hypersomnia disorders, narcolepsy, sleep-related breathing disorders, and sleep-related movement disorders.

During a follow-up period that averaged 5 years but ranged up to 14 years, 23.4% of veterans with TBI and 15.8% of those without TBI developed a sleep disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and income, those who had suffered a TBI were 50% more likely to develop any sleep disorder, compared with those who had not had a TBI (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.53.)

After controlling for medical conditions that included diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular disease, as well as psychiatric disorders such as mood disorders, anxiety, PTSD, substance use disorder, and tobacco use, the HR for developing a sleep disorder was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.37-1.44).

The association with TBI was stronger for some sleep disorders. Adjusted HRs were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.45-1.55) for insomnia, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.39-1.61) for hypersomnia, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.16-1.52) for sleep-related movement disorders, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.32) for sleep apnea.

It’s unclear what causes postinjury sleep problems, but it could be that TBI induces structural brain damage, or it could affect melatonin secretion or wake-promoting neurons.

Damage to arousal-promoting neurons could help explain the reason the link between TBI and sleep disorders was strongest for insomnia and hypersomnia, although the exact mechanism is unclear, said Dr. Leng.
 

Greater risk with mild TBI

Overall, the association was stronger for mild TBI than for moderate to severe TBI. This, said Dr. Leng, might be because of differences in the brain injury mechanism.

Mild TBI often involves repetitive concussive or subconcussive injuries, such as sports injuries or blast injury among active-duty military personnel. This type of injury is more likely to cause diffuse axonal injury and inflammation, whereas moderate or severe TBI is often attributable to a direct blow with more focal but severe damage, explained Dr. Leng.

She noted that veterans with mild TBI were more likely to have a psychiatric condition, but because the study controlled for such conditions, this doesn’t fully explain the stronger association between mild TBI and sleep disorders.

Further studies are needed to sort out the exact mechanisms, she said.

The association between TBI and risk for sleep disorders was reduced somewhat but was still moderate in an analysis that excluded patients who developed a sleep disorder within 2 years of a brain injury.

This analysis, said Dr. Leng, helped ensure that the sleep disorder developed after the brain injury.

The researchers could not examine the trajectory of sleep problems, so it’s not clear whether sleep problems worsen or get better over time, said Dr. Leng.

Because PTSD also leads to sleep problems, the researchers thought that having both PTSD and TBI might increase the risk for sleep problems. “But actually we found the association was pretty similar in those with, and without, PTSD, so that was kind of contrary to our hypothesis,” she said.

The new results underline the need for more screening for sleep disorders among patients with TBI, both in the short term and the long term, said Dr. Leng. “Clinicians should ask TBI patients about their sleep, and they should follow that up,” she said.

She added that long-term sleep disorders can affect a patient’s health and can lead to psychiatric problems and neurodegenerative diseases.

Depending on the type of sleep disorder, there are a number of possible treatments. For example, for patients with sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure treatment may be considered.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology; CEO, Brainsport, Team Neurologist, the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League; and past president, Florida Society of Neurology, said the study is “by far” the largest to investigate the correlation between sleep disorders and head trauma.

The design and outcome measures “were well thought out,” and the researchers “did an outstanding job in sorting through and analyzing the data,” said Dr. Conidi.

He added that he was particularly impressed with how the researchers addressed PTSD, which is highly prevalent among veterans with head trauma and is known to affect sleep.

The new results “solidify what those of us who see individuals with TBI have observed over the years: that there is a higher incidence of all types of sleep disorders” in individuals with a TBI, said Dr. Conidi.

However, he questioned the study’s use of guidelines to classify the various types of head trauma. These guidelines, he said, “are based on loss of consciousness, which we have started to move away from when classifying TBI.”

In addition, Dr. Conidi said he “would have loved to have seen” some correlation with neuroimaging studies, such as those used to assess subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and diffuse axonal injury, but that this “could be an impetus for future studies.”

In “a perfect world,” all patients with a TBI would undergo a polysomnography study in a sleep laboratory, but insurance companies now rarely cover such studies and have attempted to have clinicians shift to home sleep studies, said Dr. Conidi. “These are marginal at best for screening for sleep disorders,” he noted.

At his centers, every TBI patient is screened for sleep disorders and, whenever possible, undergoes formal evaluation in the sleep lab, he added.

The study was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Leng and Dr. Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Smartphone “addiction” may explain poor sleep quality in a significant proportion of young adults, new research suggests.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

Investigators found that almost 40% of adults aged 18-30 years who self-reported excessive smartphone use also reported poor sleep.

“Our study provides further support to the growing body of evidence that smartphone addiction has a deleterious impact on sleep,” wrote the researchers.

The study was published online March 2 in Frontiers of Psychiatry.
 

Not a clinical diagnosis

Smartphone addiction is not formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, but it’s an “active” area of research, lead investigator Ben Carter, PhD, King’s College London, noted in the report.

In a cross-sectional survey, 1,043 college students (aged 18-30 years, 73% women) completed the 10-question validated Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and the adapted Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Score Index.

On the SAS-SV, 406 students (38.9%) reported “addiction” to their smartphones. This estimated prevalence is consistent with other reported studies in young adult populations globally, which is in the range of 30%-45%, the researchers noted.

Overall, 61.6% of participants surveyed reported poor sleep; among those who reported smartphone addiction, 68.7% had poor sleep quality, vs. 57.1% of those who did not report smartphone addiction.

In multivariable analysis that adjusted for a variety of relevant factors, among those for whom there was evidence of smartphone addiction, the odds of poor sleep were increased by 41% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.87, P = .018).

The findings also suggest that a greater amount of time spent using the phone and greater use late at night can raise the risk for smartphone addiction.

“Should smartphone addiction become firmly established as a focus of clinical concern, those using their phones after midnight or using their phones for four or more hours per day are likely to be at high risk, and should guide administration of the SAS-SV,” the researchers wrote.
 

Caveats, cautions, and concerns

Reached for comment, Paul Weigle, MD, psychiatrist with Hartford HealthCare and Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said the finding of a relationship between addictive smartphone usage and poor sleep quality is not surprising.

“Great increases in adolescent screen media habits in recent decades have seen a concurrent increase in rates of insomnia among this population,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Weigle also noted that young people who use the phone excessively often do so in bed, “which decreases sleep onset by disrupting conditioning (the tendency for our bodies to relate bed with sleep) and by increasing physiological arousal, which makes it more difficult to fall asleep. The blue light from smartphones used at night disrupts our body’s natural circadian rhythms, confusing our brains regarding whether it is night or day, and further worsens sleep.”

Dr. Weigle said in an interview that some of his patients come to him seeking sleep medications, although the best treatment is to perform a “smartphone-ectomy” every evening.

Teenage patients will “beg, borrow, or steal” to be allowed to keep their phones by the bed with the promise not to use them overnight. Three-quarters of the time, when the parents are able to charge the phone in another room, “the sleep problem resolves,” Dr. Weigle said.

One caveat, he said, is that it’s “somewhat unclear whether this is best classified as an addiction or simply a seriously problematic habit. Either way, this type of habit causes a great deal of distress and dysfunction in the lives of those it affects, so it is important to understand,” he said.

In a statement, Bob Patton, PhD, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, noted that this is a cross-sectional study “and as such cannot lead to any firm conclusions about phone usage as the cause of reduced sleep quality.

“It does, however, provide some compelling evidence,” Dr. Patton said, “that the nature of smartphone usage and its related consequences are important considerations in addressing the emerging phenomenon of ‘smartphone addiction.’ ”

Also weighing in, Andrew Przybylski, PhD, director of research, Oxford (England) Internet Institute, University of Oxford, said the study is “the latest, among many dozens of others, to study so-called ‘smartphone addiction,’ a condition which is not recognized by any global health body and is not a psychiatric disorder.

“The study is a correlational analysis of a sample of participants recruited on university campuses and therefore only reflects the experiences of those who had the purpose of the study explained to them. It can say nothing about behaviors in the general population,” Dr. Przybylski said in a statement.

“Readers should be cautious of making any firm conclusions about the impact of smartphone use in the general population, or the idea that they’re addictive in any objective sense, on the basis of this work,” he added. The study had no specific funding. Dr. Carter, Dr. Weigle, Dr. Patton, and Dr. Przybylski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Smartphone “addiction” may explain poor sleep quality in a significant proportion of young adults, new research suggests.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

Investigators found that almost 40% of adults aged 18-30 years who self-reported excessive smartphone use also reported poor sleep.

“Our study provides further support to the growing body of evidence that smartphone addiction has a deleterious impact on sleep,” wrote the researchers.

The study was published online March 2 in Frontiers of Psychiatry.
 

Not a clinical diagnosis

Smartphone addiction is not formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, but it’s an “active” area of research, lead investigator Ben Carter, PhD, King’s College London, noted in the report.

In a cross-sectional survey, 1,043 college students (aged 18-30 years, 73% women) completed the 10-question validated Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and the adapted Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Score Index.

On the SAS-SV, 406 students (38.9%) reported “addiction” to their smartphones. This estimated prevalence is consistent with other reported studies in young adult populations globally, which is in the range of 30%-45%, the researchers noted.

Overall, 61.6% of participants surveyed reported poor sleep; among those who reported smartphone addiction, 68.7% had poor sleep quality, vs. 57.1% of those who did not report smartphone addiction.

In multivariable analysis that adjusted for a variety of relevant factors, among those for whom there was evidence of smartphone addiction, the odds of poor sleep were increased by 41% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.87, P = .018).

The findings also suggest that a greater amount of time spent using the phone and greater use late at night can raise the risk for smartphone addiction.

“Should smartphone addiction become firmly established as a focus of clinical concern, those using their phones after midnight or using their phones for four or more hours per day are likely to be at high risk, and should guide administration of the SAS-SV,” the researchers wrote.
 

Caveats, cautions, and concerns

Reached for comment, Paul Weigle, MD, psychiatrist with Hartford HealthCare and Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said the finding of a relationship between addictive smartphone usage and poor sleep quality is not surprising.

“Great increases in adolescent screen media habits in recent decades have seen a concurrent increase in rates of insomnia among this population,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Weigle also noted that young people who use the phone excessively often do so in bed, “which decreases sleep onset by disrupting conditioning (the tendency for our bodies to relate bed with sleep) and by increasing physiological arousal, which makes it more difficult to fall asleep. The blue light from smartphones used at night disrupts our body’s natural circadian rhythms, confusing our brains regarding whether it is night or day, and further worsens sleep.”

Dr. Weigle said in an interview that some of his patients come to him seeking sleep medications, although the best treatment is to perform a “smartphone-ectomy” every evening.

Teenage patients will “beg, borrow, or steal” to be allowed to keep their phones by the bed with the promise not to use them overnight. Three-quarters of the time, when the parents are able to charge the phone in another room, “the sleep problem resolves,” Dr. Weigle said.

One caveat, he said, is that it’s “somewhat unclear whether this is best classified as an addiction or simply a seriously problematic habit. Either way, this type of habit causes a great deal of distress and dysfunction in the lives of those it affects, so it is important to understand,” he said.

In a statement, Bob Patton, PhD, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, noted that this is a cross-sectional study “and as such cannot lead to any firm conclusions about phone usage as the cause of reduced sleep quality.

“It does, however, provide some compelling evidence,” Dr. Patton said, “that the nature of smartphone usage and its related consequences are important considerations in addressing the emerging phenomenon of ‘smartphone addiction.’ ”

Also weighing in, Andrew Przybylski, PhD, director of research, Oxford (England) Internet Institute, University of Oxford, said the study is “the latest, among many dozens of others, to study so-called ‘smartphone addiction,’ a condition which is not recognized by any global health body and is not a psychiatric disorder.

“The study is a correlational analysis of a sample of participants recruited on university campuses and therefore only reflects the experiences of those who had the purpose of the study explained to them. It can say nothing about behaviors in the general population,” Dr. Przybylski said in a statement.

“Readers should be cautious of making any firm conclusions about the impact of smartphone use in the general population, or the idea that they’re addictive in any objective sense, on the basis of this work,” he added. The study had no specific funding. Dr. Carter, Dr. Weigle, Dr. Patton, and Dr. Przybylski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Smartphone “addiction” may explain poor sleep quality in a significant proportion of young adults, new research suggests.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

Investigators found that almost 40% of adults aged 18-30 years who self-reported excessive smartphone use also reported poor sleep.

“Our study provides further support to the growing body of evidence that smartphone addiction has a deleterious impact on sleep,” wrote the researchers.

The study was published online March 2 in Frontiers of Psychiatry.
 

Not a clinical diagnosis

Smartphone addiction is not formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, but it’s an “active” area of research, lead investigator Ben Carter, PhD, King’s College London, noted in the report.

In a cross-sectional survey, 1,043 college students (aged 18-30 years, 73% women) completed the 10-question validated Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and the adapted Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Score Index.

On the SAS-SV, 406 students (38.9%) reported “addiction” to their smartphones. This estimated prevalence is consistent with other reported studies in young adult populations globally, which is in the range of 30%-45%, the researchers noted.

Overall, 61.6% of participants surveyed reported poor sleep; among those who reported smartphone addiction, 68.7% had poor sleep quality, vs. 57.1% of those who did not report smartphone addiction.

In multivariable analysis that adjusted for a variety of relevant factors, among those for whom there was evidence of smartphone addiction, the odds of poor sleep were increased by 41% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.87, P = .018).

The findings also suggest that a greater amount of time spent using the phone and greater use late at night can raise the risk for smartphone addiction.

“Should smartphone addiction become firmly established as a focus of clinical concern, those using their phones after midnight or using their phones for four or more hours per day are likely to be at high risk, and should guide administration of the SAS-SV,” the researchers wrote.
 

Caveats, cautions, and concerns

Reached for comment, Paul Weigle, MD, psychiatrist with Hartford HealthCare and Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said the finding of a relationship between addictive smartphone usage and poor sleep quality is not surprising.

“Great increases in adolescent screen media habits in recent decades have seen a concurrent increase in rates of insomnia among this population,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Weigle also noted that young people who use the phone excessively often do so in bed, “which decreases sleep onset by disrupting conditioning (the tendency for our bodies to relate bed with sleep) and by increasing physiological arousal, which makes it more difficult to fall asleep. The blue light from smartphones used at night disrupts our body’s natural circadian rhythms, confusing our brains regarding whether it is night or day, and further worsens sleep.”

Dr. Weigle said in an interview that some of his patients come to him seeking sleep medications, although the best treatment is to perform a “smartphone-ectomy” every evening.

Teenage patients will “beg, borrow, or steal” to be allowed to keep their phones by the bed with the promise not to use them overnight. Three-quarters of the time, when the parents are able to charge the phone in another room, “the sleep problem resolves,” Dr. Weigle said.

One caveat, he said, is that it’s “somewhat unclear whether this is best classified as an addiction or simply a seriously problematic habit. Either way, this type of habit causes a great deal of distress and dysfunction in the lives of those it affects, so it is important to understand,” he said.

In a statement, Bob Patton, PhD, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, noted that this is a cross-sectional study “and as such cannot lead to any firm conclusions about phone usage as the cause of reduced sleep quality.

“It does, however, provide some compelling evidence,” Dr. Patton said, “that the nature of smartphone usage and its related consequences are important considerations in addressing the emerging phenomenon of ‘smartphone addiction.’ ”

Also weighing in, Andrew Przybylski, PhD, director of research, Oxford (England) Internet Institute, University of Oxford, said the study is “the latest, among many dozens of others, to study so-called ‘smartphone addiction,’ a condition which is not recognized by any global health body and is not a psychiatric disorder.

“The study is a correlational analysis of a sample of participants recruited on university campuses and therefore only reflects the experiences of those who had the purpose of the study explained to them. It can say nothing about behaviors in the general population,” Dr. Przybylski said in a statement.

“Readers should be cautious of making any firm conclusions about the impact of smartphone use in the general population, or the idea that they’re addictive in any objective sense, on the basis of this work,” he added. The study had no specific funding. Dr. Carter, Dr. Weigle, Dr. Patton, and Dr. Przybylski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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