Clinical Psychiatry News

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m standing atop the Klein Matterhorn, staring out at the Alps, their moonscape peaks forming a jagged, terrifying, glorious white horizon.

I am small. But the emotions are huge. The joy: I get to be a part of all this today. The fear: It could kill me. More than kill me, it could consume me.

That’s what I always used to feel when training in Zermatt, Switzerland.

I was lucky. As a former U.S. Ski Team athlete, I was regularly able to experience such magnificent scenescapes – and feel the tactile insanity of it, too, the rise and fall of helicopters or trams taking us up the mountains, the slicing, frigid air at the summit, and the lurking on-edge feeling that you, tiny human, really aren’t meant to be standing where you are standing.

“Awe puts things in perspective,” said Craig Anderson, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at Washington University at St. Louis, and researcher of emotions and behavior. “It’s about feeling connected with people and part of the larger collective – and that makes it okay to feel small.”

Our modern world is at odds with awe. We tend to shrink into our daily lives, our problems, our devices, and the real-time emotional reactions to those things, especially anger.

It doesn’t have to be that way. A rising pile of research has shown how awe affects our brains and opens our minds – and we don’t have to be standing at the top of the Matterhorn to get the benefits.
 

‘In the upper reaches of pleasure and on the boundary of fear’

That’s how New York University ethical leadership professor Jonathan Haidt, PhD, and psychology professor Dacher Keltner, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, defined awe in a seminal report from 2003.

The feeling is composed of two elements: perceived vastness (sensing something larger than ourselves) and accommodation (our need to process and understand that vastness). The researchers also wrote that awe could “change the course of life in profound and permanent ways.”

“There’s a correlation between people who are happier and those who report more feelings of awe,” said David Yaden, PhD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthor of “The Varieties of Spiritual Experience.” “It’s unclear, though, which way the causality runs. Is it that having more awe experiences makes people happier? Or that happy people have more awe. But there is a correlation.”

One aspect about awe that’s clear: When people experience it, they report feeling more connected. And that sense of connection can lead to prosocial behavior – such as serving others and engaging with one’s community.

“Feelings of isolation are quite difficult, and we’re social creatures, so when we feel connected, we can benefit from it,” Dr. Yaden said.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology revealed that awe “awakens self-transcendence, which in turn invigorates pursuit of the authentic self.”

While these effects can be seen as one individual’s benefits, the researchers posited that they also lead to prosocial behaviors. Another study conducted by the same scientists showed that awe led to greater-good behavior during the pandemic, to the tune of an increased willingness to donate blood. In this study, researchers also cited a correlation between feelings of awe and increased empathy.
 

The awe experience

Dr. Yaden joined Dr. Keltner and other researchers in creating a scale for the “awe experience,” and found six related factors: a feeling that time momentarily slows; a sense of self-diminishment (your sense of self becomes smaller); a sense of connectedness; feeling in the presence of something grand; the need to mentally process the experience; and physical changes, like goosebumps or feeling your jaw slightly drop.

“Any of these factors can be large or small,” Dr. Yaden noted, adding that awe can also feel positive or negative. A hurricane can instill awe, for example, and the experience might not be pleasant.

However, “it’s more common for the awe experience to be positive,” Dr. Yaden said.
 

How your brain processes awe

Functional MRI, by which brain activity is measured through blood flow, allows researchers to see what’s happening in the brain after an awe experience.

One study that was conducted in the Netherlands and was published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggested that certain parts of the brain that are responsible for self-reflection were less “activated” when participants watched awe-inspiring videos.

The researchers posit that the “captivating nature of awe stimuli” could be responsible for such reductions, meaning participants’ brains were geared more toward feelings of connection with others or something greater – and a smaller sense of self.

Another study published in the journal Emotion revealed a link between awe and lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, so awe could have positive and potentially protective health benefits, as well.

And of course there are the physical and emotional benefits of nature, as dozens of studies reveal. Dr. Anderson’s research in the journal Emotion showed that nature “experiences” led to more feelings of awe and that the effects of nature also reduced stress and increased well-being.
 

Why we turn away from awe

The world we inhabit day to day isn’t conducive to experiencing awe – indoors, seated, reacting negatively to work or social media. The mentalities we forge because of this sometimes work against experiencing any form of awe.

Example: Some people don’t like to feel small. That requires a capacity for humility.

“That [feeling] can be threatening,” noted Dr. Anderson, who earned his doctorate studying as part of Dr. Keltner’s “Project Awe” research team at UC Berkeley.

The pandemic and politics and rise in angry Internet culture also contribute. And if you didn’t know, humans have a “negativity bias.”

“Our responses to stress tend to be stronger in magnitude than responses to positive things,” Dr. Anderson said. “Browsing the Internet and seeing negative things can hijack our responses. Anger really narrows our attention on what makes us angry.”

In that sense, anger is the antithesis of awe. As Dr. Anderson puts it: Awe broadens our attention to the world and “opens us up to other people and possibilities,” he said. “When we’re faced with daily hassles, when we experience something vast and awe-inspiring, those other problems aren’t as big of a deal.”
 

We crave awe in spite of ourselves

An awful lot of us are out there seeking awe, knowingly or not.

People have been stopping at scenic overlooks and climbing local peaks since forever, but let’s start with record-setting attendance at the most basic and accessible source of natural awe we have in the United States: national parks.

In 2022, 68% of the 312 million visitors sought out nature-based or recreational park activities (as opposed to historical or cultural activities). Even though a rise in national park visits in 2021 and 2022 could be attributed to pandemic-related behavior (the need for social distancing and/or the desire to get outside), people were flocking to parks prior to COVID-19. In fact, 33 parks set visitation records in 2019; 12 did so in 2022.

We also seek awe in man-made spectacle. Consider annual visitor numbers for the following:

• Golden Gate Bridge: 10 million
• : 4 million
• : 1.62 million

And what about the most awe-inducing experience ever manufactured: Space tourism. While catering to the wealthy for now, flying to space allows untrained people to enjoy something only a chosen few astronauts have been able to feel: the “overview effect,” a term coined by author Frank White for the shift in perspective that occurs in people who see Earth from space.

Upon his return from his Blue Origin flight, actor William Shatner was candid about his emotional experience. “I was crying,” he told NPR. “I didn’t know what I was crying about. It was the death that I saw in space and the lifeforce that I saw coming from the planet – the blue, the beige, and the white. And I realized one was death and the other was life.”

We want awe. We want to feel this way.
 

Adding everyday awe to your life

It may seem counterintuitive: Most awe-inspiring places are special occasion destinations, but in truth it’s possible to find awe each day. Outdoors and indoors.

Park Rx America, led by Robert Zarr, MD, MPH, boasts a network of nearly 1500 healthcare providers ready to “prescribe” walks or time in nature as part of healing. “Our growing community of ‘nature prescribers’ incorporate nature as a treatment option for their willing clients and patients,” Dr. Zarr said.

He also noted that awe is all about where you look, including in small places.

“Something as simple as going for a walk and stopping to notice the complexity of fractal patterns in the leaves, for example, leaves me with a sense of awe,” he said. “Although difficult to measure, there is no doubt that an important part of our health is intricately linked to these daily awe-filled moments.”

Nature is not the only way. Dr. Yaden suggested that going to a museum to see art or sporting events is also a way to experience the feeling.

An unexpected source of man-made awe: Screens. A study published in Nature showed that immersive video experiences (in this case, one achieved by virtual reality) were effective in eliciting an awe response in participants.

While virtual reality isn’t ubiquitous, immersive film experiences are. IMAX screens were created for just this purpose (as anyone who saw the Avatar films in this format can attest).

Is it perfect? No. But whether you’re witnessing a birth, hiking an autumn trail bathed in orange, or letting off a little gasp when you see Oppenheimer’s nuclear explosion in 70 mm, it all counts.

Because it’s not about the thing. It’s about your openness to be awed by the thing.

I’m a little like Dr. Zarr in that I can find wonder in the crystalline structures of a snowflake. And I also love to hike and inhale expansive views. If you can get to Switzerland, and specifically Zermatt, take the old red tram to the top. I highly recommend it.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m standing atop the Klein Matterhorn, staring out at the Alps, their moonscape peaks forming a jagged, terrifying, glorious white horizon.

I am small. But the emotions are huge. The joy: I get to be a part of all this today. The fear: It could kill me. More than kill me, it could consume me.

That’s what I always used to feel when training in Zermatt, Switzerland.

I was lucky. As a former U.S. Ski Team athlete, I was regularly able to experience such magnificent scenescapes – and feel the tactile insanity of it, too, the rise and fall of helicopters or trams taking us up the mountains, the slicing, frigid air at the summit, and the lurking on-edge feeling that you, tiny human, really aren’t meant to be standing where you are standing.

“Awe puts things in perspective,” said Craig Anderson, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at Washington University at St. Louis, and researcher of emotions and behavior. “It’s about feeling connected with people and part of the larger collective – and that makes it okay to feel small.”

Our modern world is at odds with awe. We tend to shrink into our daily lives, our problems, our devices, and the real-time emotional reactions to those things, especially anger.

It doesn’t have to be that way. A rising pile of research has shown how awe affects our brains and opens our minds – and we don’t have to be standing at the top of the Matterhorn to get the benefits.
 

‘In the upper reaches of pleasure and on the boundary of fear’

That’s how New York University ethical leadership professor Jonathan Haidt, PhD, and psychology professor Dacher Keltner, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, defined awe in a seminal report from 2003.

The feeling is composed of two elements: perceived vastness (sensing something larger than ourselves) and accommodation (our need to process and understand that vastness). The researchers also wrote that awe could “change the course of life in profound and permanent ways.”

“There’s a correlation between people who are happier and those who report more feelings of awe,” said David Yaden, PhD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthor of “The Varieties of Spiritual Experience.” “It’s unclear, though, which way the causality runs. Is it that having more awe experiences makes people happier? Or that happy people have more awe. But there is a correlation.”

One aspect about awe that’s clear: When people experience it, they report feeling more connected. And that sense of connection can lead to prosocial behavior – such as serving others and engaging with one’s community.

“Feelings of isolation are quite difficult, and we’re social creatures, so when we feel connected, we can benefit from it,” Dr. Yaden said.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology revealed that awe “awakens self-transcendence, which in turn invigorates pursuit of the authentic self.”

While these effects can be seen as one individual’s benefits, the researchers posited that they also lead to prosocial behaviors. Another study conducted by the same scientists showed that awe led to greater-good behavior during the pandemic, to the tune of an increased willingness to donate blood. In this study, researchers also cited a correlation between feelings of awe and increased empathy.
 

The awe experience

Dr. Yaden joined Dr. Keltner and other researchers in creating a scale for the “awe experience,” and found six related factors: a feeling that time momentarily slows; a sense of self-diminishment (your sense of self becomes smaller); a sense of connectedness; feeling in the presence of something grand; the need to mentally process the experience; and physical changes, like goosebumps or feeling your jaw slightly drop.

“Any of these factors can be large or small,” Dr. Yaden noted, adding that awe can also feel positive or negative. A hurricane can instill awe, for example, and the experience might not be pleasant.

However, “it’s more common for the awe experience to be positive,” Dr. Yaden said.
 

How your brain processes awe

Functional MRI, by which brain activity is measured through blood flow, allows researchers to see what’s happening in the brain after an awe experience.

One study that was conducted in the Netherlands and was published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggested that certain parts of the brain that are responsible for self-reflection were less “activated” when participants watched awe-inspiring videos.

The researchers posit that the “captivating nature of awe stimuli” could be responsible for such reductions, meaning participants’ brains were geared more toward feelings of connection with others or something greater – and a smaller sense of self.

Another study published in the journal Emotion revealed a link between awe and lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, so awe could have positive and potentially protective health benefits, as well.

And of course there are the physical and emotional benefits of nature, as dozens of studies reveal. Dr. Anderson’s research in the journal Emotion showed that nature “experiences” led to more feelings of awe and that the effects of nature also reduced stress and increased well-being.
 

Why we turn away from awe

The world we inhabit day to day isn’t conducive to experiencing awe – indoors, seated, reacting negatively to work or social media. The mentalities we forge because of this sometimes work against experiencing any form of awe.

Example: Some people don’t like to feel small. That requires a capacity for humility.

“That [feeling] can be threatening,” noted Dr. Anderson, who earned his doctorate studying as part of Dr. Keltner’s “Project Awe” research team at UC Berkeley.

The pandemic and politics and rise in angry Internet culture also contribute. And if you didn’t know, humans have a “negativity bias.”

“Our responses to stress tend to be stronger in magnitude than responses to positive things,” Dr. Anderson said. “Browsing the Internet and seeing negative things can hijack our responses. Anger really narrows our attention on what makes us angry.”

In that sense, anger is the antithesis of awe. As Dr. Anderson puts it: Awe broadens our attention to the world and “opens us up to other people and possibilities,” he said. “When we’re faced with daily hassles, when we experience something vast and awe-inspiring, those other problems aren’t as big of a deal.”
 

We crave awe in spite of ourselves

An awful lot of us are out there seeking awe, knowingly or not.

People have been stopping at scenic overlooks and climbing local peaks since forever, but let’s start with record-setting attendance at the most basic and accessible source of natural awe we have in the United States: national parks.

In 2022, 68% of the 312 million visitors sought out nature-based or recreational park activities (as opposed to historical or cultural activities). Even though a rise in national park visits in 2021 and 2022 could be attributed to pandemic-related behavior (the need for social distancing and/or the desire to get outside), people were flocking to parks prior to COVID-19. In fact, 33 parks set visitation records in 2019; 12 did so in 2022.

We also seek awe in man-made spectacle. Consider annual visitor numbers for the following:

• Golden Gate Bridge: 10 million
• : 4 million
• : 1.62 million

And what about the most awe-inducing experience ever manufactured: Space tourism. While catering to the wealthy for now, flying to space allows untrained people to enjoy something only a chosen few astronauts have been able to feel: the “overview effect,” a term coined by author Frank White for the shift in perspective that occurs in people who see Earth from space.

Upon his return from his Blue Origin flight, actor William Shatner was candid about his emotional experience. “I was crying,” he told NPR. “I didn’t know what I was crying about. It was the death that I saw in space and the lifeforce that I saw coming from the planet – the blue, the beige, and the white. And I realized one was death and the other was life.”

We want awe. We want to feel this way.
 

Adding everyday awe to your life

It may seem counterintuitive: Most awe-inspiring places are special occasion destinations, but in truth it’s possible to find awe each day. Outdoors and indoors.

Park Rx America, led by Robert Zarr, MD, MPH, boasts a network of nearly 1500 healthcare providers ready to “prescribe” walks or time in nature as part of healing. “Our growing community of ‘nature prescribers’ incorporate nature as a treatment option for their willing clients and patients,” Dr. Zarr said.

He also noted that awe is all about where you look, including in small places.

“Something as simple as going for a walk and stopping to notice the complexity of fractal patterns in the leaves, for example, leaves me with a sense of awe,” he said. “Although difficult to measure, there is no doubt that an important part of our health is intricately linked to these daily awe-filled moments.”

Nature is not the only way. Dr. Yaden suggested that going to a museum to see art or sporting events is also a way to experience the feeling.

An unexpected source of man-made awe: Screens. A study published in Nature showed that immersive video experiences (in this case, one achieved by virtual reality) were effective in eliciting an awe response in participants.

While virtual reality isn’t ubiquitous, immersive film experiences are. IMAX screens were created for just this purpose (as anyone who saw the Avatar films in this format can attest).

Is it perfect? No. But whether you’re witnessing a birth, hiking an autumn trail bathed in orange, or letting off a little gasp when you see Oppenheimer’s nuclear explosion in 70 mm, it all counts.

Because it’s not about the thing. It’s about your openness to be awed by the thing.

I’m a little like Dr. Zarr in that I can find wonder in the crystalline structures of a snowflake. And I also love to hike and inhale expansive views. If you can get to Switzerland, and specifically Zermatt, take the old red tram to the top. I highly recommend it.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m standing atop the Klein Matterhorn, staring out at the Alps, their moonscape peaks forming a jagged, terrifying, glorious white horizon.

I am small. But the emotions are huge. The joy: I get to be a part of all this today. The fear: It could kill me. More than kill me, it could consume me.

That’s what I always used to feel when training in Zermatt, Switzerland.

I was lucky. As a former U.S. Ski Team athlete, I was regularly able to experience such magnificent scenescapes – and feel the tactile insanity of it, too, the rise and fall of helicopters or trams taking us up the mountains, the slicing, frigid air at the summit, and the lurking on-edge feeling that you, tiny human, really aren’t meant to be standing where you are standing.

“Awe puts things in perspective,” said Craig Anderson, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at Washington University at St. Louis, and researcher of emotions and behavior. “It’s about feeling connected with people and part of the larger collective – and that makes it okay to feel small.”

Our modern world is at odds with awe. We tend to shrink into our daily lives, our problems, our devices, and the real-time emotional reactions to those things, especially anger.

It doesn’t have to be that way. A rising pile of research has shown how awe affects our brains and opens our minds – and we don’t have to be standing at the top of the Matterhorn to get the benefits.
 

‘In the upper reaches of pleasure and on the boundary of fear’

That’s how New York University ethical leadership professor Jonathan Haidt, PhD, and psychology professor Dacher Keltner, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, defined awe in a seminal report from 2003.

The feeling is composed of two elements: perceived vastness (sensing something larger than ourselves) and accommodation (our need to process and understand that vastness). The researchers also wrote that awe could “change the course of life in profound and permanent ways.”

“There’s a correlation between people who are happier and those who report more feelings of awe,” said David Yaden, PhD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthor of “The Varieties of Spiritual Experience.” “It’s unclear, though, which way the causality runs. Is it that having more awe experiences makes people happier? Or that happy people have more awe. But there is a correlation.”

One aspect about awe that’s clear: When people experience it, they report feeling more connected. And that sense of connection can lead to prosocial behavior – such as serving others and engaging with one’s community.

“Feelings of isolation are quite difficult, and we’re social creatures, so when we feel connected, we can benefit from it,” Dr. Yaden said.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology revealed that awe “awakens self-transcendence, which in turn invigorates pursuit of the authentic self.”

While these effects can be seen as one individual’s benefits, the researchers posited that they also lead to prosocial behaviors. Another study conducted by the same scientists showed that awe led to greater-good behavior during the pandemic, to the tune of an increased willingness to donate blood. In this study, researchers also cited a correlation between feelings of awe and increased empathy.
 

The awe experience

Dr. Yaden joined Dr. Keltner and other researchers in creating a scale for the “awe experience,” and found six related factors: a feeling that time momentarily slows; a sense of self-diminishment (your sense of self becomes smaller); a sense of connectedness; feeling in the presence of something grand; the need to mentally process the experience; and physical changes, like goosebumps or feeling your jaw slightly drop.

“Any of these factors can be large or small,” Dr. Yaden noted, adding that awe can also feel positive or negative. A hurricane can instill awe, for example, and the experience might not be pleasant.

However, “it’s more common for the awe experience to be positive,” Dr. Yaden said.
 

How your brain processes awe

Functional MRI, by which brain activity is measured through blood flow, allows researchers to see what’s happening in the brain after an awe experience.

One study that was conducted in the Netherlands and was published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggested that certain parts of the brain that are responsible for self-reflection were less “activated” when participants watched awe-inspiring videos.

The researchers posit that the “captivating nature of awe stimuli” could be responsible for such reductions, meaning participants’ brains were geared more toward feelings of connection with others or something greater – and a smaller sense of self.

Another study published in the journal Emotion revealed a link between awe and lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, so awe could have positive and potentially protective health benefits, as well.

And of course there are the physical and emotional benefits of nature, as dozens of studies reveal. Dr. Anderson’s research in the journal Emotion showed that nature “experiences” led to more feelings of awe and that the effects of nature also reduced stress and increased well-being.
 

Why we turn away from awe

The world we inhabit day to day isn’t conducive to experiencing awe – indoors, seated, reacting negatively to work or social media. The mentalities we forge because of this sometimes work against experiencing any form of awe.

Example: Some people don’t like to feel small. That requires a capacity for humility.

“That [feeling] can be threatening,” noted Dr. Anderson, who earned his doctorate studying as part of Dr. Keltner’s “Project Awe” research team at UC Berkeley.

The pandemic and politics and rise in angry Internet culture also contribute. And if you didn’t know, humans have a “negativity bias.”

“Our responses to stress tend to be stronger in magnitude than responses to positive things,” Dr. Anderson said. “Browsing the Internet and seeing negative things can hijack our responses. Anger really narrows our attention on what makes us angry.”

In that sense, anger is the antithesis of awe. As Dr. Anderson puts it: Awe broadens our attention to the world and “opens us up to other people and possibilities,” he said. “When we’re faced with daily hassles, when we experience something vast and awe-inspiring, those other problems aren’t as big of a deal.”
 

We crave awe in spite of ourselves

An awful lot of us are out there seeking awe, knowingly or not.

People have been stopping at scenic overlooks and climbing local peaks since forever, but let’s start with record-setting attendance at the most basic and accessible source of natural awe we have in the United States: national parks.

In 2022, 68% of the 312 million visitors sought out nature-based or recreational park activities (as opposed to historical or cultural activities). Even though a rise in national park visits in 2021 and 2022 could be attributed to pandemic-related behavior (the need for social distancing and/or the desire to get outside), people were flocking to parks prior to COVID-19. In fact, 33 parks set visitation records in 2019; 12 did so in 2022.

We also seek awe in man-made spectacle. Consider annual visitor numbers for the following:

• Golden Gate Bridge: 10 million
• : 4 million
• : 1.62 million

And what about the most awe-inducing experience ever manufactured: Space tourism. While catering to the wealthy for now, flying to space allows untrained people to enjoy something only a chosen few astronauts have been able to feel: the “overview effect,” a term coined by author Frank White for the shift in perspective that occurs in people who see Earth from space.

Upon his return from his Blue Origin flight, actor William Shatner was candid about his emotional experience. “I was crying,” he told NPR. “I didn’t know what I was crying about. It was the death that I saw in space and the lifeforce that I saw coming from the planet – the blue, the beige, and the white. And I realized one was death and the other was life.”

We want awe. We want to feel this way.
 

Adding everyday awe to your life

It may seem counterintuitive: Most awe-inspiring places are special occasion destinations, but in truth it’s possible to find awe each day. Outdoors and indoors.

Park Rx America, led by Robert Zarr, MD, MPH, boasts a network of nearly 1500 healthcare providers ready to “prescribe” walks or time in nature as part of healing. “Our growing community of ‘nature prescribers’ incorporate nature as a treatment option for their willing clients and patients,” Dr. Zarr said.

He also noted that awe is all about where you look, including in small places.

“Something as simple as going for a walk and stopping to notice the complexity of fractal patterns in the leaves, for example, leaves me with a sense of awe,” he said. “Although difficult to measure, there is no doubt that an important part of our health is intricately linked to these daily awe-filled moments.”

Nature is not the only way. Dr. Yaden suggested that going to a museum to see art or sporting events is also a way to experience the feeling.

An unexpected source of man-made awe: Screens. A study published in Nature showed that immersive video experiences (in this case, one achieved by virtual reality) were effective in eliciting an awe response in participants.

While virtual reality isn’t ubiquitous, immersive film experiences are. IMAX screens were created for just this purpose (as anyone who saw the Avatar films in this format can attest).

Is it perfect? No. But whether you’re witnessing a birth, hiking an autumn trail bathed in orange, or letting off a little gasp when you see Oppenheimer’s nuclear explosion in 70 mm, it all counts.

Because it’s not about the thing. It’s about your openness to be awed by the thing.

I’m a little like Dr. Zarr in that I can find wonder in the crystalline structures of a snowflake. And I also love to hike and inhale expansive views. If you can get to Switzerland, and specifically Zermatt, take the old red tram to the top. I highly recommend it.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

People with long COVID have specific biomarkers in their blood, according to results of a study published in Nature. 

The findings may be a step toward creating blood tests to positively identify people with long COVID so specialized treatments can be employed, researchers said.

 “This is a decisive step forward in the development of valid and reliable blood testing protocols for long COVID,” said David Putrino, PhD., lead author and professor of rehabilitation and human performance and director of the Abilities Research Center at Icahn Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Yale School of Medicine looked at blood samples from about 270 people between January 2021 and June 2022. The people had never been infected with COVID, had fully recovered from an infection, or still showed symptoms at least four months after infection.

Using machine learning, the research teams were able to differentiate between people with and without long COVID with 96% accuracy based on distinctive features in the blood samples, according to a news release from Mount Sinai.

People with long COVID had abnormal T-cell activity and low levels of the hormone cortisol. Cortisol helps people feel alert and awake, which would explain why people with long COVID often report fatigue, NBC News said in a report on the study.

“It was one of the findings that most definitively separated the folks with long Covid from the people without long Covid,” Dr. Putrino told NBC News.

The study also found that long COVID appears to reactivate latent viruses including Epstein-Barr and mononucleosis, the study said.

The blood tests could allow doctors to come up with specialized treatments in people who report a wide variety of long COVID symptoms, Dr. Putrino said. 

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ for treating long COVID, because it is an illness that infiltrates complex systems such as the immune and hormonal regulation,” he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about one in five Americans who had COVID still have long COVID. Symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, digestive problems, and loss of smell and taste.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People with long COVID have specific biomarkers in their blood, according to results of a study published in Nature. 

The findings may be a step toward creating blood tests to positively identify people with long COVID so specialized treatments can be employed, researchers said.

 “This is a decisive step forward in the development of valid and reliable blood testing protocols for long COVID,” said David Putrino, PhD., lead author and professor of rehabilitation and human performance and director of the Abilities Research Center at Icahn Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Yale School of Medicine looked at blood samples from about 270 people between January 2021 and June 2022. The people had never been infected with COVID, had fully recovered from an infection, or still showed symptoms at least four months after infection.

Using machine learning, the research teams were able to differentiate between people with and without long COVID with 96% accuracy based on distinctive features in the blood samples, according to a news release from Mount Sinai.

People with long COVID had abnormal T-cell activity and low levels of the hormone cortisol. Cortisol helps people feel alert and awake, which would explain why people with long COVID often report fatigue, NBC News said in a report on the study.

“It was one of the findings that most definitively separated the folks with long Covid from the people without long Covid,” Dr. Putrino told NBC News.

The study also found that long COVID appears to reactivate latent viruses including Epstein-Barr and mononucleosis, the study said.

The blood tests could allow doctors to come up with specialized treatments in people who report a wide variety of long COVID symptoms, Dr. Putrino said. 

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ for treating long COVID, because it is an illness that infiltrates complex systems such as the immune and hormonal regulation,” he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about one in five Americans who had COVID still have long COVID. Symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, digestive problems, and loss of smell and taste.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People with long COVID have specific biomarkers in their blood, according to results of a study published in Nature. 

The findings may be a step toward creating blood tests to positively identify people with long COVID so specialized treatments can be employed, researchers said.

 “This is a decisive step forward in the development of valid and reliable blood testing protocols for long COVID,” said David Putrino, PhD., lead author and professor of rehabilitation and human performance and director of the Abilities Research Center at Icahn Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Yale School of Medicine looked at blood samples from about 270 people between January 2021 and June 2022. The people had never been infected with COVID, had fully recovered from an infection, or still showed symptoms at least four months after infection.

Using machine learning, the research teams were able to differentiate between people with and without long COVID with 96% accuracy based on distinctive features in the blood samples, according to a news release from Mount Sinai.

People with long COVID had abnormal T-cell activity and low levels of the hormone cortisol. Cortisol helps people feel alert and awake, which would explain why people with long COVID often report fatigue, NBC News said in a report on the study.

“It was one of the findings that most definitively separated the folks with long Covid from the people without long Covid,” Dr. Putrino told NBC News.

The study also found that long COVID appears to reactivate latent viruses including Epstein-Barr and mononucleosis, the study said.

The blood tests could allow doctors to come up with specialized treatments in people who report a wide variety of long COVID symptoms, Dr. Putrino said. 

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ for treating long COVID, because it is an illness that infiltrates complex systems such as the immune and hormonal regulation,” he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about one in five Americans who had COVID still have long COVID. Symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, digestive problems, and loss of smell and taste.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurs in early adulthood is associated with cognitive decline in later life, results from a study of identical twins who served in World War II show.

The research, which included almost 9,000 individuals, showed that twins who had experienced a TBI were more likely to have lower cognitive function at age 70 versus their twin who did not experience a TBI, especially if they had lost consciousness or were older than age 24 at the time of injury. In addition, their cognitive decline occurred at a more rapid rate.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in later life, but we haven’t known about TBI’s effect on cognitive decline that does not quite meet the threshold for dementia,” study investigator Marianne Chanti-Ketterl, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of dementia in later life, but we haven’t known if TBI affects cognitive function, causes cognitive decline that has not progressed to the point of severity with Alzheimer’s or dementia,” she added.

Being able to study the impact of TBI in monozygotic twins gives this study a unique strength, she noted.

“The important thing about this is that they are monozygotic twins, and we know they shared a lot of early life exposure, and almost 100% genetics,” Dr. Chanti-Ketterl said.

The study was published online in Neurology.

For the study, the investigators assessed 8,662 participants born between 1917 and 1927 who were part of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s Twin Registry. The registry is composed of male veterans of World War II with a history of TBI, as reported by themselves or a caregiver.

The men were followed up for many years as part of the registry, but cognitive assessment only began in the 1990s. They were followed up at four different time points, at which time the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m), an alternative to the Mini-Mental State Examination that must be given in person, was administered.

A total of 25% of participants had experienced concussion in their lifetime. Of this cohort, there were 589 pairs of monozygotic twins who were discordant (one twin had TBI and the other had not).

Among the monozygotic twin cohort, a history of any TBI and being older than age 24 at the time of TBI were associated with lower TICS-m scores.

A twin who experienced TBI after age 24 scored 0.59 points lower on the TICS-m at age 70 than his twin with no TBI, and cognitive function declined faster, by 0.05 points per year.
 

First study of its kind

Holly Elser, MD, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and resident physician in neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said in an interview that the study’s twin design was a definite strength.

“There are lots of papers that have remarked on the apparent association between head injury and subsequent dementia or cognitive decline, but to my knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first, to use a twin study design, which has the unique advantage of having better control over early life and genetic factors than would ever typically be possible in a dataset of unrelated adults,” said Dr. Elser.

She added that the study findings “strengthen our understanding of the relationship between TBI and later cognitive decline, so I think there is an etiologic value to the study.”

However, Dr. Elser noted that the composition of the study population may limit the extent to which the results apply to contemporary populations.

“This was a population of White male twins born between 1917 and 1927,” she noted. “However, does the experience of people who were in the military generalize to civilian populations? Are twins representative of the general population or are they unique in terms of their risk factors?”

It is always important to emphasize inclusivity in clinical research, and in dementia research in particular, Dr. Elser added.

“There are many examples of instances where racialized and otherwise economically marginalized groups have been excluded from analysis, which is problematic because there are already economically and socially marginalized groups who disproportionately bear the brunt of dementia.

“This is not a criticism of the authors’ work, that their data didn’t include a more diverse patient base, but I think it is an important reminder that we should always interpret study findings within the limitations of the data. It’s a reminder to be thoughtful about taking explicit steps to include more diverse groups in future research,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Dr. Chanti-Ketterl and Dr. Elser have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurs in early adulthood is associated with cognitive decline in later life, results from a study of identical twins who served in World War II show.

The research, which included almost 9,000 individuals, showed that twins who had experienced a TBI were more likely to have lower cognitive function at age 70 versus their twin who did not experience a TBI, especially if they had lost consciousness or were older than age 24 at the time of injury. In addition, their cognitive decline occurred at a more rapid rate.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in later life, but we haven’t known about TBI’s effect on cognitive decline that does not quite meet the threshold for dementia,” study investigator Marianne Chanti-Ketterl, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of dementia in later life, but we haven’t known if TBI affects cognitive function, causes cognitive decline that has not progressed to the point of severity with Alzheimer’s or dementia,” she added.

Being able to study the impact of TBI in monozygotic twins gives this study a unique strength, she noted.

“The important thing about this is that they are monozygotic twins, and we know they shared a lot of early life exposure, and almost 100% genetics,” Dr. Chanti-Ketterl said.

The study was published online in Neurology.

For the study, the investigators assessed 8,662 participants born between 1917 and 1927 who were part of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s Twin Registry. The registry is composed of male veterans of World War II with a history of TBI, as reported by themselves or a caregiver.

The men were followed up for many years as part of the registry, but cognitive assessment only began in the 1990s. They were followed up at four different time points, at which time the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m), an alternative to the Mini-Mental State Examination that must be given in person, was administered.

A total of 25% of participants had experienced concussion in their lifetime. Of this cohort, there were 589 pairs of monozygotic twins who were discordant (one twin had TBI and the other had not).

Among the monozygotic twin cohort, a history of any TBI and being older than age 24 at the time of TBI were associated with lower TICS-m scores.

A twin who experienced TBI after age 24 scored 0.59 points lower on the TICS-m at age 70 than his twin with no TBI, and cognitive function declined faster, by 0.05 points per year.
 

First study of its kind

Holly Elser, MD, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and resident physician in neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said in an interview that the study’s twin design was a definite strength.

“There are lots of papers that have remarked on the apparent association between head injury and subsequent dementia or cognitive decline, but to my knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first, to use a twin study design, which has the unique advantage of having better control over early life and genetic factors than would ever typically be possible in a dataset of unrelated adults,” said Dr. Elser.

She added that the study findings “strengthen our understanding of the relationship between TBI and later cognitive decline, so I think there is an etiologic value to the study.”

However, Dr. Elser noted that the composition of the study population may limit the extent to which the results apply to contemporary populations.

“This was a population of White male twins born between 1917 and 1927,” she noted. “However, does the experience of people who were in the military generalize to civilian populations? Are twins representative of the general population or are they unique in terms of their risk factors?”

It is always important to emphasize inclusivity in clinical research, and in dementia research in particular, Dr. Elser added.

“There are many examples of instances where racialized and otherwise economically marginalized groups have been excluded from analysis, which is problematic because there are already economically and socially marginalized groups who disproportionately bear the brunt of dementia.

“This is not a criticism of the authors’ work, that their data didn’t include a more diverse patient base, but I think it is an important reminder that we should always interpret study findings within the limitations of the data. It’s a reminder to be thoughtful about taking explicit steps to include more diverse groups in future research,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Dr. Chanti-Ketterl and Dr. Elser have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurs in early adulthood is associated with cognitive decline in later life, results from a study of identical twins who served in World War II show.

The research, which included almost 9,000 individuals, showed that twins who had experienced a TBI were more likely to have lower cognitive function at age 70 versus their twin who did not experience a TBI, especially if they had lost consciousness or were older than age 24 at the time of injury. In addition, their cognitive decline occurred at a more rapid rate.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in later life, but we haven’t known about TBI’s effect on cognitive decline that does not quite meet the threshold for dementia,” study investigator Marianne Chanti-Ketterl, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“We know that TBI increases the risk of dementia in later life, but we haven’t known if TBI affects cognitive function, causes cognitive decline that has not progressed to the point of severity with Alzheimer’s or dementia,” she added.

Being able to study the impact of TBI in monozygotic twins gives this study a unique strength, she noted.

“The important thing about this is that they are monozygotic twins, and we know they shared a lot of early life exposure, and almost 100% genetics,” Dr. Chanti-Ketterl said.

The study was published online in Neurology.

For the study, the investigators assessed 8,662 participants born between 1917 and 1927 who were part of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s Twin Registry. The registry is composed of male veterans of World War II with a history of TBI, as reported by themselves or a caregiver.

The men were followed up for many years as part of the registry, but cognitive assessment only began in the 1990s. They were followed up at four different time points, at which time the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m), an alternative to the Mini-Mental State Examination that must be given in person, was administered.

A total of 25% of participants had experienced concussion in their lifetime. Of this cohort, there were 589 pairs of monozygotic twins who were discordant (one twin had TBI and the other had not).

Among the monozygotic twin cohort, a history of any TBI and being older than age 24 at the time of TBI were associated with lower TICS-m scores.

A twin who experienced TBI after age 24 scored 0.59 points lower on the TICS-m at age 70 than his twin with no TBI, and cognitive function declined faster, by 0.05 points per year.
 

First study of its kind

Holly Elser, MD, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and resident physician in neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said in an interview that the study’s twin design was a definite strength.

“There are lots of papers that have remarked on the apparent association between head injury and subsequent dementia or cognitive decline, but to my knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first, to use a twin study design, which has the unique advantage of having better control over early life and genetic factors than would ever typically be possible in a dataset of unrelated adults,” said Dr. Elser.

She added that the study findings “strengthen our understanding of the relationship between TBI and later cognitive decline, so I think there is an etiologic value to the study.”

However, Dr. Elser noted that the composition of the study population may limit the extent to which the results apply to contemporary populations.

“This was a population of White male twins born between 1917 and 1927,” she noted. “However, does the experience of people who were in the military generalize to civilian populations? Are twins representative of the general population or are they unique in terms of their risk factors?”

It is always important to emphasize inclusivity in clinical research, and in dementia research in particular, Dr. Elser added.

“There are many examples of instances where racialized and otherwise economically marginalized groups have been excluded from analysis, which is problematic because there are already economically and socially marginalized groups who disproportionately bear the brunt of dementia.

“This is not a criticism of the authors’ work, that their data didn’t include a more diverse patient base, but I think it is an important reminder that we should always interpret study findings within the limitations of the data. It’s a reminder to be thoughtful about taking explicit steps to include more diverse groups in future research,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Dr. Chanti-Ketterl and Dr. Elser have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women who use cocaine, cannabis, or other substances during pregnancy have increased risks of acute cardiovascular (CV) events while in the hospital for delivery, including more than double the risk of maternal mortality, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using the National Inpatient Sample database to identify hospital deliveries between 2004 and 2018 and diagnostic codes to identify maternal substance use, researchers compared 955,531 pregnancies with accompanying substance use – the most common substances being cannabis and opioids, followed by stimulants – to over 60 million pregnancies in which there was no substance use.
• The primary outcome was any CV event, including acute myocardial infarction, stroke, arrhythmia, endocarditis, any acute cardiomyopathy or heart failure, or cardiac arrest; other outcomes included maternal mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Deliveries complicated by substance use increased from 1,126 per 100,000 deliveries in 2004 to 1,547 per 100,000 in 2018, peaking at 2,187 per 100,000 in 2014.
• After the researchers controlled for patient demographics and CVD risk factors, results showed that pregnant women who used any substance (cannabis, opioids, methamphetamine, alcohol, tobacco, or cocaine) were more likely to experience a CVD event (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-1.70; P < .001), MACE (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.46-1.61; P < .001), or maternal mortality (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 2.15-3.25; P < .001) during hospitalization for delivery.
• Those using amphetamine/methamphetamine had ninefold higher odds of cardiomyopathy or heart failure and more than sevenfold higher odds of cardiac arrest.

IN PRACTICE:

“For the wellbeing of pregnant women and their children, substance use needs to be considered an independent risk factor for CV events in pregnancy,” the authors wrote. They called for prenatal assessments by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team to try to decrease cardiac complications.

In an accompanying editorial by Abha Khandelwal, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and others, the authors said the findings “highlight the critical support required during pregnancy and postpartum” for substance users, which should include comprehensive medical care and social services as well as access to addiction medicine and treatment of co-occurring mental health disorders.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Kari Evans, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Arizona, Phoenix. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of administrative databases may have resulted in underreporting of diagnoses. The researchers could not assess the association of dose, duration, method, or timing of use for any substance with CV events. They also could not examine the effect of vaping on maternal CV events or differentiate hospitalizations for delivery that were complicated by CV events from hospitalizations for CV events that prompted delivery. The data did not reflect the postpartum period, during which a high rate of adverse CV events occurs.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women who use cocaine, cannabis, or other substances during pregnancy have increased risks of acute cardiovascular (CV) events while in the hospital for delivery, including more than double the risk of maternal mortality, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using the National Inpatient Sample database to identify hospital deliveries between 2004 and 2018 and diagnostic codes to identify maternal substance use, researchers compared 955,531 pregnancies with accompanying substance use – the most common substances being cannabis and opioids, followed by stimulants – to over 60 million pregnancies in which there was no substance use.
• The primary outcome was any CV event, including acute myocardial infarction, stroke, arrhythmia, endocarditis, any acute cardiomyopathy or heart failure, or cardiac arrest; other outcomes included maternal mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Deliveries complicated by substance use increased from 1,126 per 100,000 deliveries in 2004 to 1,547 per 100,000 in 2018, peaking at 2,187 per 100,000 in 2014.
• After the researchers controlled for patient demographics and CVD risk factors, results showed that pregnant women who used any substance (cannabis, opioids, methamphetamine, alcohol, tobacco, or cocaine) were more likely to experience a CVD event (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-1.70; P < .001), MACE (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.46-1.61; P < .001), or maternal mortality (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 2.15-3.25; P < .001) during hospitalization for delivery.
• Those using amphetamine/methamphetamine had ninefold higher odds of cardiomyopathy or heart failure and more than sevenfold higher odds of cardiac arrest.

IN PRACTICE:

“For the wellbeing of pregnant women and their children, substance use needs to be considered an independent risk factor for CV events in pregnancy,” the authors wrote. They called for prenatal assessments by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team to try to decrease cardiac complications.

In an accompanying editorial by Abha Khandelwal, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and others, the authors said the findings “highlight the critical support required during pregnancy and postpartum” for substance users, which should include comprehensive medical care and social services as well as access to addiction medicine and treatment of co-occurring mental health disorders.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Kari Evans, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Arizona, Phoenix. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of administrative databases may have resulted in underreporting of diagnoses. The researchers could not assess the association of dose, duration, method, or timing of use for any substance with CV events. They also could not examine the effect of vaping on maternal CV events or differentiate hospitalizations for delivery that were complicated by CV events from hospitalizations for CV events that prompted delivery. The data did not reflect the postpartum period, during which a high rate of adverse CV events occurs.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women who use cocaine, cannabis, or other substances during pregnancy have increased risks of acute cardiovascular (CV) events while in the hospital for delivery, including more than double the risk of maternal mortality, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using the National Inpatient Sample database to identify hospital deliveries between 2004 and 2018 and diagnostic codes to identify maternal substance use, researchers compared 955,531 pregnancies with accompanying substance use – the most common substances being cannabis and opioids, followed by stimulants – to over 60 million pregnancies in which there was no substance use.
• The primary outcome was any CV event, including acute myocardial infarction, stroke, arrhythmia, endocarditis, any acute cardiomyopathy or heart failure, or cardiac arrest; other outcomes included maternal mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Deliveries complicated by substance use increased from 1,126 per 100,000 deliveries in 2004 to 1,547 per 100,000 in 2018, peaking at 2,187 per 100,000 in 2014.
• After the researchers controlled for patient demographics and CVD risk factors, results showed that pregnant women who used any substance (cannabis, opioids, methamphetamine, alcohol, tobacco, or cocaine) were more likely to experience a CVD event (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-1.70; P < .001), MACE (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.46-1.61; P < .001), or maternal mortality (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 2.15-3.25; P < .001) during hospitalization for delivery.
• Those using amphetamine/methamphetamine had ninefold higher odds of cardiomyopathy or heart failure and more than sevenfold higher odds of cardiac arrest.

IN PRACTICE:

“For the wellbeing of pregnant women and their children, substance use needs to be considered an independent risk factor for CV events in pregnancy,” the authors wrote. They called for prenatal assessments by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team to try to decrease cardiac complications.

In an accompanying editorial by Abha Khandelwal, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and others, the authors said the findings “highlight the critical support required during pregnancy and postpartum” for substance users, which should include comprehensive medical care and social services as well as access to addiction medicine and treatment of co-occurring mental health disorders.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Kari Evans, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Arizona, Phoenix. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of administrative databases may have resulted in underreporting of diagnoses. The researchers could not assess the association of dose, duration, method, or timing of use for any substance with CV events. They also could not examine the effect of vaping on maternal CV events or differentiate hospitalizations for delivery that were complicated by CV events from hospitalizations for CV events that prompted delivery. The data did not reflect the postpartum period, during which a high rate of adverse CV events occurs.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A diet high in ultraprocessed food (UPF), particularly artificial sweeteners, has been linked to increased depression risk, new data from the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) suggest.

Nurses who consumed more than eight servings daily had about a 50% higher risk of developing depression than nurses who consumed four or fewer servings daily.

However, in a secondary analysis, in which the researchers tried to tease out specific foods that may be associated with increased risk, only artificial sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with an increased risk of depression.

“Animal studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” study investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Given this potential association between ultraprocessed food and multiple adverse health conditions, wherever possible individuals may wish to limit their intake of such foods. This may be a lifestyle change that could have important benefits, particularly for those who struggle with mental health,” Dr. Chan said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Multiple potential mechanisms

The findings are based on 31,712 mostly non-Hispanic White women who were free of depression at baseline. The mean age of the patients at baseline was 52 years. As part of the NHS II, the women provided information on diet every 4 years using validated food frequency questionnaires.

Compared with women with low UPF intake, those with high UPF intake had greater body mass index (BMI). In addition, they were apt to smoke and have diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and they were less apt to exercise regularly.

During the study period, there were 2,122 incident cases of depression, as determined using a strict definition that required self-reported clinician-diagnosed depression and regular antidepressant use. There were 4,840 incident cases, as determined using a broad definition that required clinical diagnosis and/or antidepressant use.

Compared with women in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption (fewer than four daily servings), those in the highest quintile (more than 8.8 daily servings) had an increased risk of depression.

This was noted for both the strict depression definition (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and the broad one (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001).

“Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking,” the researchers reported.

In secondary analyses, they classified UPF into their components, including ultraprocessed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats, sauces, ultraprocessed dairy products, savory snacks, processed meat, beverages, and artificial sweeteners.

Comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, only high intake of artificially sweetened beverages (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.57; P < .001) and artificial sweeteners (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P < .001) was associated with greater risk of depression and after multivariable regression.

In an exploratory analysis, women who reduced their UPF intake by at least three servings per day were at lower risk of depression (strict definition: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), compared with those with relatively stable intake in each 4-year period.

“Ultraprocessed foods have been associated with several different health outcomes which may reflect an effect on common pathways that underlie chronic conditions,” said Dr. Chan.

For example, UPF intake has been associated with chronic inflammation, which in turns leads to multiple potential adverse health effects, including depression, he explained.

There is also a link between UPF and disruption of the gut microbiome.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” Dr. Chan said.
 

Association, not causation

Several experts weighed in on the study results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England), cautioned that the study only offers information on association – not causation.

“It is very possible that people with depression change their diet and might decide to consume foods that are easier to prepare – which would often be foods considered to be ultraprocessed,” Dr. Kuhnle said.

What’s most interesting is that the association between UPF intake and depression was driven by a single factor – artificial sweeteners.

“This supports one of the main criticisms of the UPF concept, that it combines a wide range of different foods and thereby makes it difficult to identify underlying causes,” Dr. Kuhnle added.

“There are currently no data that link artificial sweetener use to mental health, despite most of them having been available for some time. It is also important to note that there are a wide range of different artificial sweeteners that are metabolized very differently and that there might be reverse causality,” Dr. Kuhnle commented.

Paul Keedwell, MBChB, PhD, consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said this is an “interesting and important finding, but one that raises more questions. At this stage, we cannot say how big an effect diet has on depression risk compared to other risk factors, like family history of depression, stress levels, and having a supportive social network.”

Dr. Keedwell noted that the investigators carefully excluded the possibility that the effect is mediated by obesity or lack of exercise.

“However, an important consideration is that a diet based on ready meals and artificially sweetened drinks might indicate a hectic lifestyle or one with shift work. In other words, a fast-food diet could be an indirect marker of chronic stress. Prolonged stress probably remains the main risk factor for depression,” Dr. Keedwell said.

Keith Frayn, PhD, professor emeritus of human metabolism, University of Oxford (England), noted that the relationship between artificial sweeteners and depression “stands out clearly” even after adjusting for multiple confounding factors, including BMI, smoking, and exercise.

“This adds to growing concerns about artificial sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. The link with depression needs confirmation and further research to suggest how it might be brought about,” Dr. Frayn cautioned.

The NHS II was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from Bayer and Zoe and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Freenome outside this work. Dr. Keedwell and Dr. Kuhnle disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Frayn is an author of books on nutrition and metabolism.

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

A diet high in ultraprocessed food (UPF), particularly artificial sweeteners, has been linked to increased depression risk, new data from the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) suggest.

Nurses who consumed more than eight servings daily had about a 50% higher risk of developing depression than nurses who consumed four or fewer servings daily.

However, in a secondary analysis, in which the researchers tried to tease out specific foods that may be associated with increased risk, only artificial sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with an increased risk of depression.

“Animal studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” study investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Given this potential association between ultraprocessed food and multiple adverse health conditions, wherever possible individuals may wish to limit their intake of such foods. This may be a lifestyle change that could have important benefits, particularly for those who struggle with mental health,” Dr. Chan said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Multiple potential mechanisms

The findings are based on 31,712 mostly non-Hispanic White women who were free of depression at baseline. The mean age of the patients at baseline was 52 years. As part of the NHS II, the women provided information on diet every 4 years using validated food frequency questionnaires.

Compared with women with low UPF intake, those with high UPF intake had greater body mass index (BMI). In addition, they were apt to smoke and have diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and they were less apt to exercise regularly.

During the study period, there were 2,122 incident cases of depression, as determined using a strict definition that required self-reported clinician-diagnosed depression and regular antidepressant use. There were 4,840 incident cases, as determined using a broad definition that required clinical diagnosis and/or antidepressant use.

Compared with women in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption (fewer than four daily servings), those in the highest quintile (more than 8.8 daily servings) had an increased risk of depression.

This was noted for both the strict depression definition (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and the broad one (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001).

“Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking,” the researchers reported.

In secondary analyses, they classified UPF into their components, including ultraprocessed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats, sauces, ultraprocessed dairy products, savory snacks, processed meat, beverages, and artificial sweeteners.

Comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, only high intake of artificially sweetened beverages (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.57; P < .001) and artificial sweeteners (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P < .001) was associated with greater risk of depression and after multivariable regression.

In an exploratory analysis, women who reduced their UPF intake by at least three servings per day were at lower risk of depression (strict definition: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), compared with those with relatively stable intake in each 4-year period.

“Ultraprocessed foods have been associated with several different health outcomes which may reflect an effect on common pathways that underlie chronic conditions,” said Dr. Chan.

For example, UPF intake has been associated with chronic inflammation, which in turns leads to multiple potential adverse health effects, including depression, he explained.

There is also a link between UPF and disruption of the gut microbiome.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” Dr. Chan said.
 

Association, not causation

Several experts weighed in on the study results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England), cautioned that the study only offers information on association – not causation.

“It is very possible that people with depression change their diet and might decide to consume foods that are easier to prepare – which would often be foods considered to be ultraprocessed,” Dr. Kuhnle said.

What’s most interesting is that the association between UPF intake and depression was driven by a single factor – artificial sweeteners.

“This supports one of the main criticisms of the UPF concept, that it combines a wide range of different foods and thereby makes it difficult to identify underlying causes,” Dr. Kuhnle added.

“There are currently no data that link artificial sweetener use to mental health, despite most of them having been available for some time. It is also important to note that there are a wide range of different artificial sweeteners that are metabolized very differently and that there might be reverse causality,” Dr. Kuhnle commented.

Paul Keedwell, MBChB, PhD, consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said this is an “interesting and important finding, but one that raises more questions. At this stage, we cannot say how big an effect diet has on depression risk compared to other risk factors, like family history of depression, stress levels, and having a supportive social network.”

Dr. Keedwell noted that the investigators carefully excluded the possibility that the effect is mediated by obesity or lack of exercise.

“However, an important consideration is that a diet based on ready meals and artificially sweetened drinks might indicate a hectic lifestyle or one with shift work. In other words, a fast-food diet could be an indirect marker of chronic stress. Prolonged stress probably remains the main risk factor for depression,” Dr. Keedwell said.

Keith Frayn, PhD, professor emeritus of human metabolism, University of Oxford (England), noted that the relationship between artificial sweeteners and depression “stands out clearly” even after adjusting for multiple confounding factors, including BMI, smoking, and exercise.

“This adds to growing concerns about artificial sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. The link with depression needs confirmation and further research to suggest how it might be brought about,” Dr. Frayn cautioned.

The NHS II was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from Bayer and Zoe and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Freenome outside this work. Dr. Keedwell and Dr. Kuhnle disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Frayn is an author of books on nutrition and metabolism.

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

A diet high in ultraprocessed food (UPF), particularly artificial sweeteners, has been linked to increased depression risk, new data from the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) suggest.

Nurses who consumed more than eight servings daily had about a 50% higher risk of developing depression than nurses who consumed four or fewer servings daily.

However, in a secondary analysis, in which the researchers tried to tease out specific foods that may be associated with increased risk, only artificial sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with an increased risk of depression.

“Animal studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” study investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Given this potential association between ultraprocessed food and multiple adverse health conditions, wherever possible individuals may wish to limit their intake of such foods. This may be a lifestyle change that could have important benefits, particularly for those who struggle with mental health,” Dr. Chan said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Multiple potential mechanisms

The findings are based on 31,712 mostly non-Hispanic White women who were free of depression at baseline. The mean age of the patients at baseline was 52 years. As part of the NHS II, the women provided information on diet every 4 years using validated food frequency questionnaires.

Compared with women with low UPF intake, those with high UPF intake had greater body mass index (BMI). In addition, they were apt to smoke and have diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and they were less apt to exercise regularly.

During the study period, there were 2,122 incident cases of depression, as determined using a strict definition that required self-reported clinician-diagnosed depression and regular antidepressant use. There were 4,840 incident cases, as determined using a broad definition that required clinical diagnosis and/or antidepressant use.

Compared with women in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption (fewer than four daily servings), those in the highest quintile (more than 8.8 daily servings) had an increased risk of depression.

This was noted for both the strict depression definition (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and the broad one (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001).

“Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking,” the researchers reported.

In secondary analyses, they classified UPF into their components, including ultraprocessed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats, sauces, ultraprocessed dairy products, savory snacks, processed meat, beverages, and artificial sweeteners.

Comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, only high intake of artificially sweetened beverages (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.57; P < .001) and artificial sweeteners (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P < .001) was associated with greater risk of depression and after multivariable regression.

In an exploratory analysis, women who reduced their UPF intake by at least three servings per day were at lower risk of depression (strict definition: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), compared with those with relatively stable intake in each 4-year period.

“Ultraprocessed foods have been associated with several different health outcomes which may reflect an effect on common pathways that underlie chronic conditions,” said Dr. Chan.

For example, UPF intake has been associated with chronic inflammation, which in turns leads to multiple potential adverse health effects, including depression, he explained.

There is also a link between UPF and disruption of the gut microbiome.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” Dr. Chan said.
 

Association, not causation

Several experts weighed in on the study results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England), cautioned that the study only offers information on association – not causation.

“It is very possible that people with depression change their diet and might decide to consume foods that are easier to prepare – which would often be foods considered to be ultraprocessed,” Dr. Kuhnle said.

What’s most interesting is that the association between UPF intake and depression was driven by a single factor – artificial sweeteners.

“This supports one of the main criticisms of the UPF concept, that it combines a wide range of different foods and thereby makes it difficult to identify underlying causes,” Dr. Kuhnle added.

“There are currently no data that link artificial sweetener use to mental health, despite most of them having been available for some time. It is also important to note that there are a wide range of different artificial sweeteners that are metabolized very differently and that there might be reverse causality,” Dr. Kuhnle commented.

Paul Keedwell, MBChB, PhD, consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said this is an “interesting and important finding, but one that raises more questions. At this stage, we cannot say how big an effect diet has on depression risk compared to other risk factors, like family history of depression, stress levels, and having a supportive social network.”

Dr. Keedwell noted that the investigators carefully excluded the possibility that the effect is mediated by obesity or lack of exercise.

“However, an important consideration is that a diet based on ready meals and artificially sweetened drinks might indicate a hectic lifestyle or one with shift work. In other words, a fast-food diet could be an indirect marker of chronic stress. Prolonged stress probably remains the main risk factor for depression,” Dr. Keedwell said.

Keith Frayn, PhD, professor emeritus of human metabolism, University of Oxford (England), noted that the relationship between artificial sweeteners and depression “stands out clearly” even after adjusting for multiple confounding factors, including BMI, smoking, and exercise.

“This adds to growing concerns about artificial sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. The link with depression needs confirmation and further research to suggest how it might be brought about,” Dr. Frayn cautioned.

The NHS II was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from Bayer and Zoe and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Freenome outside this work. Dr. Keedwell and Dr. Kuhnle disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Frayn is an author of books on nutrition and metabolism.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Young adults who simultaneously use alcohol and marijuana (SAM) consume more drinks, are high for more hours in the day, and report more negative alcohol-related consequences.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2-year study included 409 people aged 18-25 years with a history of simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use (50.9% were women; 48.2% were non-Hispanic White; 48.9% were college students).
• Participants completed daily online surveys about substance use and negative substance-related consequences for 14 continuous days every 4 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alcohol use was reported on 36.1% of survey days, marijuana use on 28.0%, and alcohol and marijuana use on 15.0%.
• Negative substance-related consequences were reported on 28.0% of drinking days and 56.4% of marijuana days.
• SAM use was reported in 81.7% of alcohol users and 86.6% of marijuana users.
• On SAM use days, participants consumed an average of 37% more drinks, with 43% more negative alcohol consequences; were high for 10% more hours; and were more likely to feel clumsy or dizzy, compared with non-SAM use days.

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding should be integrated into psychoeducational programs highlighting the risk of combining alcohol and marijuana,” the authors write. “A more nuanced harm-reduction [approach] could also encourage young adults to closely monitor and limit the amount of each substance being used if they choose to combine substances.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anne M. Fairlie, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, and funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The study was published online in Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study participants were recruited based on their substance use and lived in a region where recreational marijuana is legal, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Substance use and consequences were self-reported and subject to bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Young adults who simultaneously use alcohol and marijuana (SAM) consume more drinks, are high for more hours in the day, and report more negative alcohol-related consequences.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2-year study included 409 people aged 18-25 years with a history of simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use (50.9% were women; 48.2% were non-Hispanic White; 48.9% were college students).
• Participants completed daily online surveys about substance use and negative substance-related consequences for 14 continuous days every 4 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alcohol use was reported on 36.1% of survey days, marijuana use on 28.0%, and alcohol and marijuana use on 15.0%.
• Negative substance-related consequences were reported on 28.0% of drinking days and 56.4% of marijuana days.
• SAM use was reported in 81.7% of alcohol users and 86.6% of marijuana users.
• On SAM use days, participants consumed an average of 37% more drinks, with 43% more negative alcohol consequences; were high for 10% more hours; and were more likely to feel clumsy or dizzy, compared with non-SAM use days.

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding should be integrated into psychoeducational programs highlighting the risk of combining alcohol and marijuana,” the authors write. “A more nuanced harm-reduction [approach] could also encourage young adults to closely monitor and limit the amount of each substance being used if they choose to combine substances.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anne M. Fairlie, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, and funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The study was published online in Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study participants were recruited based on their substance use and lived in a region where recreational marijuana is legal, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Substance use and consequences were self-reported and subject to bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Young adults who simultaneously use alcohol and marijuana (SAM) consume more drinks, are high for more hours in the day, and report more negative alcohol-related consequences.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2-year study included 409 people aged 18-25 years with a history of simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use (50.9% were women; 48.2% were non-Hispanic White; 48.9% were college students).
• Participants completed daily online surveys about substance use and negative substance-related consequences for 14 continuous days every 4 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alcohol use was reported on 36.1% of survey days, marijuana use on 28.0%, and alcohol and marijuana use on 15.0%.
• Negative substance-related consequences were reported on 28.0% of drinking days and 56.4% of marijuana days.
• SAM use was reported in 81.7% of alcohol users and 86.6% of marijuana users.
• On SAM use days, participants consumed an average of 37% more drinks, with 43% more negative alcohol consequences; were high for 10% more hours; and were more likely to feel clumsy or dizzy, compared with non-SAM use days.

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding should be integrated into psychoeducational programs highlighting the risk of combining alcohol and marijuana,” the authors write. “A more nuanced harm-reduction [approach] could also encourage young adults to closely monitor and limit the amount of each substance being used if they choose to combine substances.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anne M. Fairlie, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, and funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The study was published online in Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study participants were recruited based on their substance use and lived in a region where recreational marijuana is legal, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Substance use and consequences were self-reported and subject to bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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