Clinical Psychiatry News

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Children of fathers who develop postpartum depression are more likely to experience multiple adverse childhood experiences by the time they’re 5 years old, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Paternal depression and adverse childhood experiences

The study involved an analysis of six waves of data from the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study, which follows a national cohort of children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The cohort includes an intentional over-representation of unmarried mothers, who make up about 75% of the overall population.

The researchers used the World Health Organization’s Composite International Diagnosis Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) to assess fathers’ depression when their children were 1 year old. Then the researchers looked at the number of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) children had at 5 years old.

The analysis was adjusted to account for the child’s sex and the father’s age, race/ethnicity, and education as well as whether he was born inside or outside the United States. The findings were also adjusted for the whether the child’s parents were married or cohabiting, whether the child had low birth weight, whether the birth was covered by Medicaid, and whether the mother had postpartum depression.

Among the 1,933 pairs of fathers and children in the analysis, nearly half the fathers were non-Hispanic Black (48%) and more than half (64%) had a high school education or lower level of education. Medicaid paid for half the children’s births.

Nine percent of the fathers experienced depression during their child’s first year, and 70% of the children had at least one ACE at 5 years old. Two in five children (39%) had two ACEs at age 5, and 21% of children had three ACEs.

Children were twice as likely to have three ACEs at 5 years old if their father had depression during the child’s first year (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-2.93). Paternal depression was also significantly associated with children having one ACE (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.45-3.81) and two ACES (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.35-2.63) at age 5.

The ACE with the highest association with paternal depression was the father’s absence from children’s lives (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.04). In addition, children of fathers with depression had 60% greater odds of exposure to substance use (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.34).

Children also had greater odds of child maltreatment at age 5 if their father had depression in their child’s first year. Odds were greater for psychological maltreatment (aOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.34), neglect (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.08-2.46), and physical maltreatment (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.04-2.35). The researchers did not find any association between paternal depression and the ACEs of sexual maltreatment, maternal depression, incarceration of someone in the home, or violence toward the mother.

”We know that dads play a critical role in the family,” Dr. Schmitz said. “We as pediatricians have a really unique position with families, and we should capitalize on that opportunity to engage with fathers just like we do with mothers and postpartum depression. Hopefully by doing that, we’ll reduce hardships for children and families down the road.”

Dr. Schmitz also said it’s important for pediatricians to advocate at a policy level “to really include dads more explicitly in maternal and child health policy and advocate for better father-focused interventions from father-focused research.” She further acknowledged the stigma that exists around men’s mental health in general and the need to find out the best ways to help overcome that stigma.
 

‘Concerning’ findings may suggest a need for screening

Jason Terk, MD, a pediatrician practicing in north Texas and past president of the Texas Pediatric Society, was not surprised to see a link between depression in fathers and adversity in their children. Dr. Terk was not involved in the research but noted that the 9% rate of paternal depression seen in the study is similar to national rates of depression in U.S. adults.

“I think that the presence of paternal depression being associated with ACEs in their children in their first 5 years of life is certainly concerning and worthy of intervention for both the fathers and their children,” Dr. Terk said. “The key take-home message for clinicians who care for infants and small children is that the presence of paternal depression should increase awareness of adverse effects on those children. We need to consider screening for this at 12 months of age in much the same way we screen for maternal depression for younger infants.”

Dr. Terk noted one limitation of the study was that it didn’t suggest any specific risk factors pediatricians might look for to increase surveillance of potential depression in fathers.

“Also, unlike maternal depression, in which moms may be connected with their obstetricians if they screen positive on an Edinburgh questionnaire, we will be hard-pressed to know where to refer dads who are found to be depressed when their babies are 12 months old,” Dr. Terk said. “Screening must lead to helpful responses if the screening reveals a problem.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Schmitz had no disclosures. Dr. Terk has been a speaker for Sanofi on a topic unrelated to this research.

WASHINGTON – Children of fathers who develop postpartum depression are more likely to experience multiple adverse childhood experiences by the time they’re 5 years old, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Paternal depression and adverse childhood experiences

The study involved an analysis of six waves of data from the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study, which follows a national cohort of children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The cohort includes an intentional over-representation of unmarried mothers, who make up about 75% of the overall population.

The researchers used the World Health Organization’s Composite International Diagnosis Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) to assess fathers’ depression when their children were 1 year old. Then the researchers looked at the number of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) children had at 5 years old.

The analysis was adjusted to account for the child’s sex and the father’s age, race/ethnicity, and education as well as whether he was born inside or outside the United States. The findings were also adjusted for the whether the child’s parents were married or cohabiting, whether the child had low birth weight, whether the birth was covered by Medicaid, and whether the mother had postpartum depression.

Among the 1,933 pairs of fathers and children in the analysis, nearly half the fathers were non-Hispanic Black (48%) and more than half (64%) had a high school education or lower level of education. Medicaid paid for half the children’s births.

Nine percent of the fathers experienced depression during their child’s first year, and 70% of the children had at least one ACE at 5 years old. Two in five children (39%) had two ACEs at age 5, and 21% of children had three ACEs.

Children were twice as likely to have three ACEs at 5 years old if their father had depression during the child’s first year (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-2.93). Paternal depression was also significantly associated with children having one ACE (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.45-3.81) and two ACES (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.35-2.63) at age 5.

The ACE with the highest association with paternal depression was the father’s absence from children’s lives (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.04). In addition, children of fathers with depression had 60% greater odds of exposure to substance use (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.34).

Children also had greater odds of child maltreatment at age 5 if their father had depression in their child’s first year. Odds were greater for psychological maltreatment (aOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.34), neglect (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.08-2.46), and physical maltreatment (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.04-2.35). The researchers did not find any association between paternal depression and the ACEs of sexual maltreatment, maternal depression, incarceration of someone in the home, or violence toward the mother.

”We know that dads play a critical role in the family,” Dr. Schmitz said. “We as pediatricians have a really unique position with families, and we should capitalize on that opportunity to engage with fathers just like we do with mothers and postpartum depression. Hopefully by doing that, we’ll reduce hardships for children and families down the road.”

Dr. Schmitz also said it’s important for pediatricians to advocate at a policy level “to really include dads more explicitly in maternal and child health policy and advocate for better father-focused interventions from father-focused research.” She further acknowledged the stigma that exists around men’s mental health in general and the need to find out the best ways to help overcome that stigma.
 

‘Concerning’ findings may suggest a need for screening

Jason Terk, MD, a pediatrician practicing in north Texas and past president of the Texas Pediatric Society, was not surprised to see a link between depression in fathers and adversity in their children. Dr. Terk was not involved in the research but noted that the 9% rate of paternal depression seen in the study is similar to national rates of depression in U.S. adults.

“I think that the presence of paternal depression being associated with ACEs in their children in their first 5 years of life is certainly concerning and worthy of intervention for both the fathers and their children,” Dr. Terk said. “The key take-home message for clinicians who care for infants and small children is that the presence of paternal depression should increase awareness of adverse effects on those children. We need to consider screening for this at 12 months of age in much the same way we screen for maternal depression for younger infants.”

Dr. Terk noted one limitation of the study was that it didn’t suggest any specific risk factors pediatricians might look for to increase surveillance of potential depression in fathers.

“Also, unlike maternal depression, in which moms may be connected with their obstetricians if they screen positive on an Edinburgh questionnaire, we will be hard-pressed to know where to refer dads who are found to be depressed when their babies are 12 months old,” Dr. Terk said. “Screening must lead to helpful responses if the screening reveals a problem.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Schmitz had no disclosures. Dr. Terk has been a speaker for Sanofi on a topic unrelated to this research.

WASHINGTON – Children of fathers who develop postpartum depression are more likely to experience multiple adverse childhood experiences by the time they’re 5 years old, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Paternal depression and adverse childhood experiences

The study involved an analysis of six waves of data from the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study, which follows a national cohort of children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The cohort includes an intentional over-representation of unmarried mothers, who make up about 75% of the overall population.

The researchers used the World Health Organization’s Composite International Diagnosis Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) to assess fathers’ depression when their children were 1 year old. Then the researchers looked at the number of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) children had at 5 years old.

The analysis was adjusted to account for the child’s sex and the father’s age, race/ethnicity, and education as well as whether he was born inside or outside the United States. The findings were also adjusted for the whether the child’s parents were married or cohabiting, whether the child had low birth weight, whether the birth was covered by Medicaid, and whether the mother had postpartum depression.

Among the 1,933 pairs of fathers and children in the analysis, nearly half the fathers were non-Hispanic Black (48%) and more than half (64%) had a high school education or lower level of education. Medicaid paid for half the children’s births.

Nine percent of the fathers experienced depression during their child’s first year, and 70% of the children had at least one ACE at 5 years old. Two in five children (39%) had two ACEs at age 5, and 21% of children had three ACEs.

Children were twice as likely to have three ACEs at 5 years old if their father had depression during the child’s first year (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-2.93). Paternal depression was also significantly associated with children having one ACE (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.45-3.81) and two ACES (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.35-2.63) at age 5.

The ACE with the highest association with paternal depression was the father’s absence from children’s lives (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.04). In addition, children of fathers with depression had 60% greater odds of exposure to substance use (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.34).

Children also had greater odds of child maltreatment at age 5 if their father had depression in their child’s first year. Odds were greater for psychological maltreatment (aOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.34), neglect (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.08-2.46), and physical maltreatment (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.04-2.35). The researchers did not find any association between paternal depression and the ACEs of sexual maltreatment, maternal depression, incarceration of someone in the home, or violence toward the mother.

”We know that dads play a critical role in the family,” Dr. Schmitz said. “We as pediatricians have a really unique position with families, and we should capitalize on that opportunity to engage with fathers just like we do with mothers and postpartum depression. Hopefully by doing that, we’ll reduce hardships for children and families down the road.”

Dr. Schmitz also said it’s important for pediatricians to advocate at a policy level “to really include dads more explicitly in maternal and child health policy and advocate for better father-focused interventions from father-focused research.” She further acknowledged the stigma that exists around men’s mental health in general and the need to find out the best ways to help overcome that stigma.
 

‘Concerning’ findings may suggest a need for screening

Jason Terk, MD, a pediatrician practicing in north Texas and past president of the Texas Pediatric Society, was not surprised to see a link between depression in fathers and adversity in their children. Dr. Terk was not involved in the research but noted that the 9% rate of paternal depression seen in the study is similar to national rates of depression in U.S. adults.

“I think that the presence of paternal depression being associated with ACEs in their children in their first 5 years of life is certainly concerning and worthy of intervention for both the fathers and their children,” Dr. Terk said. “The key take-home message for clinicians who care for infants and small children is that the presence of paternal depression should increase awareness of adverse effects on those children. We need to consider screening for this at 12 months of age in much the same way we screen for maternal depression for younger infants.”

Dr. Terk noted one limitation of the study was that it didn’t suggest any specific risk factors pediatricians might look for to increase surveillance of potential depression in fathers.

“Also, unlike maternal depression, in which moms may be connected with their obstetricians if they screen positive on an Edinburgh questionnaire, we will be hard-pressed to know where to refer dads who are found to be depressed when their babies are 12 months old,” Dr. Terk said. “Screening must lead to helpful responses if the screening reveals a problem.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Schmitz had no disclosures. Dr. Terk has been a speaker for Sanofi on a topic unrelated to this research.

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tripled among young adults with past-year depression, results from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show. The increase was especially high among young adults and those earning less than $75,000 a year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed responses of 478,500 adult respondents to the NSDUH, a cross-sectional, in-person survey administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration between 2008 and 2019.
• Respondents were questioned about past-month and past-year LSD use and past-year depression.
• Investigators conducted statistical analysis between December 2022 and June 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Past-year use of LSD increased significantly more among adults with major depression, increasing from 0.5% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2019 (prevalence difference, 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 1.0%-1.6%]) compared with adults without major depression.
• This difference was particularly pronounced among young adults with depression age 34 years or younger (PD for age 18-25 years, 3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%-4.2%]; PD for age 26-34 years, 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.8%]).
• The increase was also higher among those earning less than $75,000 per year (PD for < $20,000, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.3%-2.6%]; PD for $20,000-$49,999, 1.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.1%]; PD for $50,000-$74,999, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.7%-2.0%]).
• Use of other hallucinogen classes either decreased or increased only among select age groups or time frames; the use of LSD consistently increased among every observed age group from 2002 to 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should aim to understand the motivations for LSD use as well as the directionality between nonmedical LSD use and depression. As the evaluation of LSD as a potential psychiatric treatment continues, public health efforts to promote safe and evidence-based use of psychedelics are critical,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Deborah S. Hasin, PhD, of Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, New York, and published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include the use of self-reporting measures in the NSDUH and the lack of information about motives for or doses of LSD use.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tripled among young adults with past-year depression, results from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show. The increase was especially high among young adults and those earning less than $75,000 a year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed responses of 478,500 adult respondents to the NSDUH, a cross-sectional, in-person survey administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration between 2008 and 2019.
• Respondents were questioned about past-month and past-year LSD use and past-year depression.
• Investigators conducted statistical analysis between December 2022 and June 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Past-year use of LSD increased significantly more among adults with major depression, increasing from 0.5% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2019 (prevalence difference, 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 1.0%-1.6%]) compared with adults without major depression.
• This difference was particularly pronounced among young adults with depression age 34 years or younger (PD for age 18-25 years, 3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%-4.2%]; PD for age 26-34 years, 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.8%]).
• The increase was also higher among those earning less than $75,000 per year (PD for < $20,000, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.3%-2.6%]; PD for $20,000-$49,999, 1.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.1%]; PD for $50,000-$74,999, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.7%-2.0%]).
• Use of other hallucinogen classes either decreased or increased only among select age groups or time frames; the use of LSD consistently increased among every observed age group from 2002 to 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should aim to understand the motivations for LSD use as well as the directionality between nonmedical LSD use and depression. As the evaluation of LSD as a potential psychiatric treatment continues, public health efforts to promote safe and evidence-based use of psychedelics are critical,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Deborah S. Hasin, PhD, of Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, New York, and published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include the use of self-reporting measures in the NSDUH and the lack of information about motives for or doses of LSD use.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tripled among young adults with past-year depression, results from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show. The increase was especially high among young adults and those earning less than $75,000 a year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed responses of 478,500 adult respondents to the NSDUH, a cross-sectional, in-person survey administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration between 2008 and 2019.
• Respondents were questioned about past-month and past-year LSD use and past-year depression.
• Investigators conducted statistical analysis between December 2022 and June 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Past-year use of LSD increased significantly more among adults with major depression, increasing from 0.5% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2019 (prevalence difference, 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 1.0%-1.6%]) compared with adults without major depression.
• This difference was particularly pronounced among young adults with depression age 34 years or younger (PD for age 18-25 years, 3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%-4.2%]; PD for age 26-34 years, 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.8%]).
• The increase was also higher among those earning less than $75,000 per year (PD for < $20,000, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.3%-2.6%]; PD for $20,000-$49,999, 1.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.1%]; PD for $50,000-$74,999, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.7%-2.0%]).
• Use of other hallucinogen classes either decreased or increased only among select age groups or time frames; the use of LSD consistently increased among every observed age group from 2002 to 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should aim to understand the motivations for LSD use as well as the directionality between nonmedical LSD use and depression. As the evaluation of LSD as a potential psychiatric treatment continues, public health efforts to promote safe and evidence-based use of psychedelics are critical,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Deborah S. Hasin, PhD, of Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, New York, and published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include the use of self-reporting measures in the NSDUH and the lack of information about motives for or doses of LSD use.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Playing chess or other board games slows cognitive decline and improves quality of life in older patients, results of a new systematic review suggest.
 

“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).

After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.

The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.

Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
 

Which games are best?

Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).

Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).

In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.

Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.

The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.

He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.

Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.

In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
 

Social and cognitive value

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.

Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.

There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.

“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”

But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.

“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”

Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Playing chess or other board games slows cognitive decline and improves quality of life in older patients, results of a new systematic review suggest.
 

“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).

After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.

The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.

Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
 

Which games are best?

Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).

Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).

In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.

Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.

The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.

He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.

Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.

In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
 

Social and cognitive value

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.

Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.

There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.

“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”

But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.

“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”

Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Playing chess or other board games slows cognitive decline and improves quality of life in older patients, results of a new systematic review suggest.
 

“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).

After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.

The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.

Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
 

Which games are best?

Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).

Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).

In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.

Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.

The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.

He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.

Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.

In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
 

Social and cognitive value

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.

Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.

There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.

“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”

But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.

“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”

Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”