Clinical Psychiatry News

A large brain imaging study of adults with six different psychiatric illnesses shows that heterogeneity in regional gray matter volume deviations is a general feature of psychiatric illness, but that these regionally heterogeneous areas are often embedded within common functional circuits and networks.

The findings suggest that “targeting brain circuits, rather than specific brain regions, may be a more effective way of developing new treatments,” study investigator Ashlea Segal said in an email.

The findings also suggest that it’s “unlikely that a single cause or mechanism of a given disorder exists, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to treatment is likely only appropriate for a small subset of individuals. In fact, one size doesn’t fit all. It probably doesn’t even fit most,” said Ms. Segal, a PhD candidate with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health’s Neural Systems and Behaviour Lab at Monash University in Melbourne.

“Focusing on brain alterations at an individual level allows us to develop more personally tailored treatments,” Ms. Segal added.

Regional heterogeneity, the authors write, “thus offers a plausible explanation for the well-described clinical heterogeneity observed in psychiatric disorders, while circuit- and network-level aggregation of deviations is a putative neural substrate for phenotypic similarities between patients assigned the same diagnosis.”

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience
 

Beyond group averages

For decades, researchers have mapped brain areas showing reduced gray matter volume (GMV) in people diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, but these maps have only been generated at the level of group averages, Ms. Segal explained.

“This means that we understand how the brains of people with, say, schizophrenia, differ from those without schizophrenia on average, but we can’t really say much about individual people,” Ms. Segal said.

For their study, the researchers used new statistical techniques developed by Andre Marquand, PhD, who co-led the project, to characterize the heterogeneity of GMV differences in 1,294 individuals diagnosed with one of six psychiatric conditions and 1,465 matched controls. Dr. Marquand is affiliated with the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

These techniques “allow us to benchmark the size of over 1,000 different brain regions in any given person relative to what we should expect to see in the general population. In this way, we can identify, for any person, brain regions showing unusually small or large volumes, given that person’s age and sex,” Ms. Segal told this news organization.

The clinical sample included 202 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 153 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 228 with bipolar disorder, 161 with major depressive disorder, 167 with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 383 individuals with schizophrenia.

Confirming earlier findings, those with psychiatric illness showed more GMV deviations than healthy controls, the researchers found.

However, at the individual level, deviations from population expectations for regional gray matter volumes were “highly heterogeneous,” affecting the same area in less than 7% of people with the same diagnosis, they note. “This result means that it is difficult to pinpoint treatment targets or causal mechanisms by focusing on group averages alone,” Alex Fornito, PhD, of Monash University, who led the research team, said in a statement.

“It may also explain why people with the same diagnosis show wide variability in their symptom profiles and treatment outcomes,” Dr. Fornito added.

Yet, despite considerable heterogeneity at the regional level across different diagnoses, these deviations were embedded within common functional circuits and networks in up to 56% of cases. 

The salience-ventral attention network, for example, which plays a central role in cognitive control, interoceptive awareness, and switching between internally and externally focused attention, was implicated across diagnoses, with other neural networks selectively involved in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and ADHD.

The researchers say the approach they developed opens new opportunities for mapping brain changes in mental illness.

“The framework we have developed allows us to understand the diversity of brain changes in people with mental illness at different levels, from individual regions through to more widespread brain circuits and networks, offering a deeper insight into how the brain is affected in individual people,” Dr. Fornito said in a statement.

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Segal, Dr. Fornito, and Dr. Marquand report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large brain imaging study of adults with six different psychiatric illnesses shows that heterogeneity in regional gray matter volume deviations is a general feature of psychiatric illness, but that these regionally heterogeneous areas are often embedded within common functional circuits and networks.

The findings suggest that “targeting brain circuits, rather than specific brain regions, may be a more effective way of developing new treatments,” study investigator Ashlea Segal said in an email.

The findings also suggest that it’s “unlikely that a single cause or mechanism of a given disorder exists, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to treatment is likely only appropriate for a small subset of individuals. In fact, one size doesn’t fit all. It probably doesn’t even fit most,” said Ms. Segal, a PhD candidate with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health’s Neural Systems and Behaviour Lab at Monash University in Melbourne.

“Focusing on brain alterations at an individual level allows us to develop more personally tailored treatments,” Ms. Segal added.

Regional heterogeneity, the authors write, “thus offers a plausible explanation for the well-described clinical heterogeneity observed in psychiatric disorders, while circuit- and network-level aggregation of deviations is a putative neural substrate for phenotypic similarities between patients assigned the same diagnosis.”

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience
 

Beyond group averages

For decades, researchers have mapped brain areas showing reduced gray matter volume (GMV) in people diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, but these maps have only been generated at the level of group averages, Ms. Segal explained.

“This means that we understand how the brains of people with, say, schizophrenia, differ from those without schizophrenia on average, but we can’t really say much about individual people,” Ms. Segal said.

For their study, the researchers used new statistical techniques developed by Andre Marquand, PhD, who co-led the project, to characterize the heterogeneity of GMV differences in 1,294 individuals diagnosed with one of six psychiatric conditions and 1,465 matched controls. Dr. Marquand is affiliated with the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

These techniques “allow us to benchmark the size of over 1,000 different brain regions in any given person relative to what we should expect to see in the general population. In this way, we can identify, for any person, brain regions showing unusually small or large volumes, given that person’s age and sex,” Ms. Segal told this news organization.

The clinical sample included 202 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 153 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 228 with bipolar disorder, 161 with major depressive disorder, 167 with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 383 individuals with schizophrenia.

Confirming earlier findings, those with psychiatric illness showed more GMV deviations than healthy controls, the researchers found.

However, at the individual level, deviations from population expectations for regional gray matter volumes were “highly heterogeneous,” affecting the same area in less than 7% of people with the same diagnosis, they note. “This result means that it is difficult to pinpoint treatment targets or causal mechanisms by focusing on group averages alone,” Alex Fornito, PhD, of Monash University, who led the research team, said in a statement.

“It may also explain why people with the same diagnosis show wide variability in their symptom profiles and treatment outcomes,” Dr. Fornito added.

Yet, despite considerable heterogeneity at the regional level across different diagnoses, these deviations were embedded within common functional circuits and networks in up to 56% of cases. 

The salience-ventral attention network, for example, which plays a central role in cognitive control, interoceptive awareness, and switching between internally and externally focused attention, was implicated across diagnoses, with other neural networks selectively involved in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and ADHD.

The researchers say the approach they developed opens new opportunities for mapping brain changes in mental illness.

“The framework we have developed allows us to understand the diversity of brain changes in people with mental illness at different levels, from individual regions through to more widespread brain circuits and networks, offering a deeper insight into how the brain is affected in individual people,” Dr. Fornito said in a statement.

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Segal, Dr. Fornito, and Dr. Marquand report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large brain imaging study of adults with six different psychiatric illnesses shows that heterogeneity in regional gray matter volume deviations is a general feature of psychiatric illness, but that these regionally heterogeneous areas are often embedded within common functional circuits and networks.

The findings suggest that “targeting brain circuits, rather than specific brain regions, may be a more effective way of developing new treatments,” study investigator Ashlea Segal said in an email.

The findings also suggest that it’s “unlikely that a single cause or mechanism of a given disorder exists, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to treatment is likely only appropriate for a small subset of individuals. In fact, one size doesn’t fit all. It probably doesn’t even fit most,” said Ms. Segal, a PhD candidate with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health’s Neural Systems and Behaviour Lab at Monash University in Melbourne.

“Focusing on brain alterations at an individual level allows us to develop more personally tailored treatments,” Ms. Segal added.

Regional heterogeneity, the authors write, “thus offers a plausible explanation for the well-described clinical heterogeneity observed in psychiatric disorders, while circuit- and network-level aggregation of deviations is a putative neural substrate for phenotypic similarities between patients assigned the same diagnosis.”

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience
 

Beyond group averages

For decades, researchers have mapped brain areas showing reduced gray matter volume (GMV) in people diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, but these maps have only been generated at the level of group averages, Ms. Segal explained.

“This means that we understand how the brains of people with, say, schizophrenia, differ from those without schizophrenia on average, but we can’t really say much about individual people,” Ms. Segal said.

For their study, the researchers used new statistical techniques developed by Andre Marquand, PhD, who co-led the project, to characterize the heterogeneity of GMV differences in 1,294 individuals diagnosed with one of six psychiatric conditions and 1,465 matched controls. Dr. Marquand is affiliated with the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

These techniques “allow us to benchmark the size of over 1,000 different brain regions in any given person relative to what we should expect to see in the general population. In this way, we can identify, for any person, brain regions showing unusually small or large volumes, given that person’s age and sex,” Ms. Segal told this news organization.

The clinical sample included 202 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 153 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 228 with bipolar disorder, 161 with major depressive disorder, 167 with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 383 individuals with schizophrenia.

Confirming earlier findings, those with psychiatric illness showed more GMV deviations than healthy controls, the researchers found.

However, at the individual level, deviations from population expectations for regional gray matter volumes were “highly heterogeneous,” affecting the same area in less than 7% of people with the same diagnosis, they note. “This result means that it is difficult to pinpoint treatment targets or causal mechanisms by focusing on group averages alone,” Alex Fornito, PhD, of Monash University, who led the research team, said in a statement.

“It may also explain why people with the same diagnosis show wide variability in their symptom profiles and treatment outcomes,” Dr. Fornito added.

Yet, despite considerable heterogeneity at the regional level across different diagnoses, these deviations were embedded within common functional circuits and networks in up to 56% of cases. 

The salience-ventral attention network, for example, which plays a central role in cognitive control, interoceptive awareness, and switching between internally and externally focused attention, was implicated across diagnoses, with other neural networks selectively involved in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and ADHD.

The researchers say the approach they developed opens new opportunities for mapping brain changes in mental illness.

“The framework we have developed allows us to understand the diversity of brain changes in people with mental illness at different levels, from individual regions through to more widespread brain circuits and networks, offering a deeper insight into how the brain is affected in individual people,” Dr. Fornito said in a statement.

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Segal, Dr. Fornito, and Dr. Marquand report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.

That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?

Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.

Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.

It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
 

Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD

Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:

Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.

Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.

Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?

Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.

The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.

Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that successful treatment of PPD is not a “one-stop shop,” but rather typically includes a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.

That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?

Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.

Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.

It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
 

Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD

Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:

Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.

Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.

Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?

Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.

The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.

Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that successful treatment of PPD is not a “one-stop shop,” but rather typically includes a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.

That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?

Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.

Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.

It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
 

Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD

Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:

Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.

Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.

Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?

Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.

The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.

Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that successful treatment of PPD is not a “one-stop shop,” but rather typically includes a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Cisgender women who identify as sexual minorities may have an increased risk of postpartum depression compared with heterosexual women, new research shows. However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.

“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.

To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.

Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.

The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).

Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.

The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.

Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.

The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”

On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

Dr. Lapping-Carr

Develop more supportive systems

To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.

“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.

Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.

While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.

“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.

Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.

“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.

She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.

“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said. 

The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”

Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.

“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”  

The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.

Cisgender women who identify as sexual minorities may have an increased risk of postpartum depression compared with heterosexual women, new research shows. However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.

“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.

To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.

Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.

The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).

Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.

The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.

Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.

The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”

On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

Dr. Lapping-Carr

Develop more supportive systems

To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.

“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.

Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.

While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.

“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.

Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.

“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.

She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.

“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said. 

The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”

Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.

“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”  

The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.

Cisgender women who identify as sexual minorities may have an increased risk of postpartum depression compared with heterosexual women, new research shows. However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.

“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.

To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.

Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.

The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).

Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.

The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.

Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.

The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”

On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

Dr. Lapping-Carr

Develop more supportive systems

To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.

“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.

Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.

While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.

“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.

Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.

“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.

She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.

“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said. 

The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”

Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.

“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”  

The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

New research calls into question the established method of assessing patient response to antidepressant treatment and expands the concepts of “responder” and “nonresponder.” 

Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).

Brown University

Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.

“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.

The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.

What’s the best tool?

“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”

Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.

The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
 

Doing better than we think

The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.

To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:

• 14 depressive symptoms.
• 11 nondepressive symptoms.
• 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
• 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
• 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
• 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).

Patients were divided into three groups:

• Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
• PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
• Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).

The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.

Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.

Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.

Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.

As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).

“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
 

‘Better enough’

Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.

Columbia University Medical Center

“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”

Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”

He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research calls into question the established method of assessing patient response to antidepressant treatment and expands the concepts of “responder” and “nonresponder.” 

Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).

Brown University

Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.

“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.

The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.

What’s the best tool?

“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”

Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.

The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
 

Doing better than we think

The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.

To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:

• 14 depressive symptoms.
• 11 nondepressive symptoms.
• 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
• 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
• 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
• 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).

Patients were divided into three groups:

• Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
• PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
• Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).

The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.

Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.

Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.

Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.

As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).

“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
 

‘Better enough’

Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.

Columbia University Medical Center

“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”

Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”

He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research calls into question the established method of assessing patient response to antidepressant treatment and expands the concepts of “responder” and “nonresponder.” 

Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).

Brown University

Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.

“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.

The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.

What’s the best tool?

“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”

Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.

The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
 

Doing better than we think

The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.

To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:

• 14 depressive symptoms.
• 11 nondepressive symptoms.
• 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
• 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
• 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
• 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).

Patients were divided into three groups:

• Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
• PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
• Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).

The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.

Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.

Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.

Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.

As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).

“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
 

‘Better enough’

Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.

Columbia University Medical Center

“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”

Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”

He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.

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