Clinical Psychiatry News

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

TOPLINE:

Light therapy leads to significant improvement in several sleep measures and helps alleviate depression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a meta-analysis of 15 high-quality trials shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• This meta-analysis included 15 randomized controlled trials involving 598 patients with mild to moderate AD.
• The included trials were written in English, published between 2005 and 2022, and performed in seven countries. A fixed-effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Light therapy significantly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference [MD], −2.42; P < .00001), increased interdaily stability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), and reduced intradaily variability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), indicating better sleep quality.
• Light therapy reduced agitation (MD, −3.97; P < .00001), depression (MD, −2.55; P < .00001), and caregiver burden (MD, −3.57; P < .00001).
• Light therapy also had a significant advantage over usual care in reducing the severity of psychobehavioral symptoms as assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD, −3.07; P < .00001).
• Light therapy had no statistically significant effect on improving cognitive function as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings, combined with its low side-effects, suggest the role of light therapy as a promising treatment for AD. Although light therapy has fewer side effects than pharmacological treatment, adverse behavioral outcomes in patients due to bright light exposure should be considered,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Lili Zang and colleagues from Weifang Medical University School of Nursing, Shandong Province, China, was published online on December 6, 2023, in PLOS One.

LIMITATIONS:

The types and degrees of dementia in the included studies were inconsistent, potentially affecting the outcome indicators. Some articles did not clearly describe their randomization and allocation concealment methods, indicating possible bias in these studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China. The authors declared no competing interests.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Light therapy leads to significant improvement in several sleep measures and helps alleviate depression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a meta-analysis of 15 high-quality trials shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• This meta-analysis included 15 randomized controlled trials involving 598 patients with mild to moderate AD.
• The included trials were written in English, published between 2005 and 2022, and performed in seven countries. A fixed-effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Light therapy significantly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference [MD], −2.42; P < .00001), increased interdaily stability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), and reduced intradaily variability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), indicating better sleep quality.
• Light therapy reduced agitation (MD, −3.97; P < .00001), depression (MD, −2.55; P < .00001), and caregiver burden (MD, −3.57; P < .00001).
• Light therapy also had a significant advantage over usual care in reducing the severity of psychobehavioral symptoms as assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD, −3.07; P < .00001).
• Light therapy had no statistically significant effect on improving cognitive function as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings, combined with its low side-effects, suggest the role of light therapy as a promising treatment for AD. Although light therapy has fewer side effects than pharmacological treatment, adverse behavioral outcomes in patients due to bright light exposure should be considered,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Lili Zang and colleagues from Weifang Medical University School of Nursing, Shandong Province, China, was published online on December 6, 2023, in PLOS One.

LIMITATIONS:

The types and degrees of dementia in the included studies were inconsistent, potentially affecting the outcome indicators. Some articles did not clearly describe their randomization and allocation concealment methods, indicating possible bias in these studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China. The authors declared no competing interests.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Light therapy leads to significant improvement in several sleep measures and helps alleviate depression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a meta-analysis of 15 high-quality trials shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• This meta-analysis included 15 randomized controlled trials involving 598 patients with mild to moderate AD.
• The included trials were written in English, published between 2005 and 2022, and performed in seven countries. A fixed-effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Light therapy significantly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference [MD], −2.42; P < .00001), increased interdaily stability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), and reduced intradaily variability (MD, −0.04; P < .00001), indicating better sleep quality.
• Light therapy reduced agitation (MD, −3.97; P < .00001), depression (MD, −2.55; P < .00001), and caregiver burden (MD, −3.57; P < .00001).
• Light therapy also had a significant advantage over usual care in reducing the severity of psychobehavioral symptoms as assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD, −3.07; P < .00001).
• Light therapy had no statistically significant effect on improving cognitive function as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings, combined with its low side-effects, suggest the role of light therapy as a promising treatment for AD. Although light therapy has fewer side effects than pharmacological treatment, adverse behavioral outcomes in patients due to bright light exposure should be considered,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Lili Zang and colleagues from Weifang Medical University School of Nursing, Shandong Province, China, was published online on December 6, 2023, in PLOS One.

LIMITATIONS:

The types and degrees of dementia in the included studies were inconsistent, potentially affecting the outcome indicators. Some articles did not clearly describe their randomization and allocation concealment methods, indicating possible bias in these studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China. The authors declared no competing interests.

Megan Brooks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depression, constipation, cystitis/urinary tract infections (UTIs), and sexual dysfunction may be early warning signs of multiple sclerosis (MS) 5 years prior to diagnosis, new research shows.

However, these prodromal symptoms are also more likely to occur in people with two other autoimmune diseases — lupus and Crohn’s disease — and therefore, will not help earlier diagnosis, study investigator, Céline Louapre, professor of neurology, Sorbonne University and Paris Brain Institute, Paris, France, said in an interview.

“On the other hand, in certain patients who may be at particular risk of developing MS, such as in certain familial forms or in patients with incidental inflammatory lesions discovered on MRI, the presence of these symptoms could suggest an already active process, prior to the first typical symptoms of the disease,” she noted.
 

Retracing MS Origins

The case-control study, published online in Neurology, included 20,174 people with newly diagnosed MS who were matched to 54,790 without MS, as well as 30,477 with Crohn’s disease and 7337 with lupus.

Using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes in electronic health records, the researchers assessed the associations between 113 diseases and symptoms in the 5 years before and after an MS diagnosis.

Twelve ICD-10 codes were significantly positively associated with the risk for MS compared with controls without MS.

After considering ICD-10 codes suggestive of neurologic symptoms as the first diagnosis of MS, the following five ICD-10 codes remained significantly associated with MS:

• Depression (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.11-1.34)
• Sexual dysfunction (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.11-1.95)
• Constipation (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.27-1.78)
• Cystitis (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39)
• UTIs of unspecified site (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.61)

However, none of these conditions was selectively associated with MS in comparison with both lupus and Crohn’s disease. All five ICD-10 codes identified were still associated with MS during the 5 years after diagnosis.

“The importance of investigating prodromal signs in MS is that it allows us to retrace the origins of the disease,” said Dr. Louapre.

“The main contribution of the data on prodromes in MS is to clarify that the disease and its mechanisms are frequently underway well before the first typical neurological symptoms, and that the causes of MS are probably present many years before diagnosis,” she added.

A limitation of the study was that data were not available for other factors that could influence people’s risk of developing MS, such as education level, ethnicity, body mass index, socioeconomic status, or genetic information.

It also remains unclear whether the conditions linked to MS are risk factors for the disease or nonspecific early MS symptoms.
 

Preventing Disease Evolution

In a linked editorial, Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, with the University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada, and Raffaele Palladino, MD, PhD, with the University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, note these findings highlight the challenges of accurately identifying the prodromal stage of a specific disease.

“Commonalities of prodromal features are recognized across neurodegenerative diseases; this is also true for immune-mediated diseases, and it is not surprising, given shared etiologic factors and pathobiological mechanisms,” they point out.

“This suggests that we should be trying to link prodromal features to specific underlying pathobiological changes rather than specific diseases. This approach would require use of different study designs, including broad, deeply phenotyped cohorts, but would allow us to develop and test interventions targeted at those mechanisms, and could ultimately achieve the goal of preventing disease evolution,” they add.

The study was supported by the French National Research Agency. Dr. Louapre has received consulting or travel fees from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Teva, and Merck Serono, unrelated to this study. Dr. Marrie is a coinvestigator on studies receiving funding from Biogen Idec and Roche Canada; receives research funding from CIHR, Research Manitoba, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Multiple Sclerosis Scientific Foundation, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, CMSC, the Arthritis Society and the US Department of Defense; and serves on the editorial board of Neurology. Dr. Palladino has taken part in advisory boards/consultancy for MSD and Sanofi and has received support from the UK MS Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depression, constipation, cystitis/urinary tract infections (UTIs), and sexual dysfunction may be early warning signs of multiple sclerosis (MS) 5 years prior to diagnosis, new research shows.

However, these prodromal symptoms are also more likely to occur in people with two other autoimmune diseases — lupus and Crohn’s disease — and therefore, will not help earlier diagnosis, study investigator, Céline Louapre, professor of neurology, Sorbonne University and Paris Brain Institute, Paris, France, said in an interview.

“On the other hand, in certain patients who may be at particular risk of developing MS, such as in certain familial forms or in patients with incidental inflammatory lesions discovered on MRI, the presence of these symptoms could suggest an already active process, prior to the first typical symptoms of the disease,” she noted.
 

Retracing MS Origins

The case-control study, published online in Neurology, included 20,174 people with newly diagnosed MS who were matched to 54,790 without MS, as well as 30,477 with Crohn’s disease and 7337 with lupus.

Using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes in electronic health records, the researchers assessed the associations between 113 diseases and symptoms in the 5 years before and after an MS diagnosis.

Twelve ICD-10 codes were significantly positively associated with the risk for MS compared with controls without MS.

After considering ICD-10 codes suggestive of neurologic symptoms as the first diagnosis of MS, the following five ICD-10 codes remained significantly associated with MS:

• Depression (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.11-1.34)
• Sexual dysfunction (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.11-1.95)
• Constipation (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.27-1.78)
• Cystitis (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39)
• UTIs of unspecified site (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.61)

However, none of these conditions was selectively associated with MS in comparison with both lupus and Crohn’s disease. All five ICD-10 codes identified were still associated with MS during the 5 years after diagnosis.

“The importance of investigating prodromal signs in MS is that it allows us to retrace the origins of the disease,” said Dr. Louapre.

“The main contribution of the data on prodromes in MS is to clarify that the disease and its mechanisms are frequently underway well before the first typical neurological symptoms, and that the causes of MS are probably present many years before diagnosis,” she added.

A limitation of the study was that data were not available for other factors that could influence people’s risk of developing MS, such as education level, ethnicity, body mass index, socioeconomic status, or genetic information.

It also remains unclear whether the conditions linked to MS are risk factors for the disease or nonspecific early MS symptoms.
 

Preventing Disease Evolution

In a linked editorial, Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, with the University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada, and Raffaele Palladino, MD, PhD, with the University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, note these findings highlight the challenges of accurately identifying the prodromal stage of a specific disease.

“Commonalities of prodromal features are recognized across neurodegenerative diseases; this is also true for immune-mediated diseases, and it is not surprising, given shared etiologic factors and pathobiological mechanisms,” they point out.

“This suggests that we should be trying to link prodromal features to specific underlying pathobiological changes rather than specific diseases. This approach would require use of different study designs, including broad, deeply phenotyped cohorts, but would allow us to develop and test interventions targeted at those mechanisms, and could ultimately achieve the goal of preventing disease evolution,” they add.

The study was supported by the French National Research Agency. Dr. Louapre has received consulting or travel fees from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Teva, and Merck Serono, unrelated to this study. Dr. Marrie is a coinvestigator on studies receiving funding from Biogen Idec and Roche Canada; receives research funding from CIHR, Research Manitoba, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Multiple Sclerosis Scientific Foundation, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, CMSC, the Arthritis Society and the US Department of Defense; and serves on the editorial board of Neurology. Dr. Palladino has taken part in advisory boards/consultancy for MSD and Sanofi and has received support from the UK MS Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depression, constipation, cystitis/urinary tract infections (UTIs), and sexual dysfunction may be early warning signs of multiple sclerosis (MS) 5 years prior to diagnosis, new research shows.

However, these prodromal symptoms are also more likely to occur in people with two other autoimmune diseases — lupus and Crohn’s disease — and therefore, will not help earlier diagnosis, study investigator, Céline Louapre, professor of neurology, Sorbonne University and Paris Brain Institute, Paris, France, said in an interview.

“On the other hand, in certain patients who may be at particular risk of developing MS, such as in certain familial forms or in patients with incidental inflammatory lesions discovered on MRI, the presence of these symptoms could suggest an already active process, prior to the first typical symptoms of the disease,” she noted.
 

Retracing MS Origins

The case-control study, published online in Neurology, included 20,174 people with newly diagnosed MS who were matched to 54,790 without MS, as well as 30,477 with Crohn’s disease and 7337 with lupus.

Using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes in electronic health records, the researchers assessed the associations between 113 diseases and symptoms in the 5 years before and after an MS diagnosis.

Twelve ICD-10 codes were significantly positively associated with the risk for MS compared with controls without MS.

After considering ICD-10 codes suggestive of neurologic symptoms as the first diagnosis of MS, the following five ICD-10 codes remained significantly associated with MS:

• Depression (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.11-1.34)
• Sexual dysfunction (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.11-1.95)
• Constipation (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.27-1.78)
• Cystitis (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39)
• UTIs of unspecified site (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.61)

However, none of these conditions was selectively associated with MS in comparison with both lupus and Crohn’s disease. All five ICD-10 codes identified were still associated with MS during the 5 years after diagnosis.

“The importance of investigating prodromal signs in MS is that it allows us to retrace the origins of the disease,” said Dr. Louapre.

“The main contribution of the data on prodromes in MS is to clarify that the disease and its mechanisms are frequently underway well before the first typical neurological symptoms, and that the causes of MS are probably present many years before diagnosis,” she added.

A limitation of the study was that data were not available for other factors that could influence people’s risk of developing MS, such as education level, ethnicity, body mass index, socioeconomic status, or genetic information.

It also remains unclear whether the conditions linked to MS are risk factors for the disease or nonspecific early MS symptoms.
 

Preventing Disease Evolution

In a linked editorial, Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, with the University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada, and Raffaele Palladino, MD, PhD, with the University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, note these findings highlight the challenges of accurately identifying the prodromal stage of a specific disease.

“Commonalities of prodromal features are recognized across neurodegenerative diseases; this is also true for immune-mediated diseases, and it is not surprising, given shared etiologic factors and pathobiological mechanisms,” they point out.

“This suggests that we should be trying to link prodromal features to specific underlying pathobiological changes rather than specific diseases. This approach would require use of different study designs, including broad, deeply phenotyped cohorts, but would allow us to develop and test interventions targeted at those mechanisms, and could ultimately achieve the goal of preventing disease evolution,” they add.

The study was supported by the French National Research Agency. Dr. Louapre has received consulting or travel fees from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Teva, and Merck Serono, unrelated to this study. Dr. Marrie is a coinvestigator on studies receiving funding from Biogen Idec and Roche Canada; receives research funding from CIHR, Research Manitoba, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Multiple Sclerosis Scientific Foundation, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, CMSC, the Arthritis Society and the US Department of Defense; and serves on the editorial board of Neurology. Dr. Palladino has taken part in advisory boards/consultancy for MSD and Sanofi and has received support from the UK MS Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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