Clinical Psychiatry News

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show greater improvement in symptoms with viloxazine extended release (ER) compared with treatment with atomoxetine, new research suggests.

Investigators studied patients who started out taking atomoxetine and, after a washout period, initiated treatment with viloxazine. Participants’ ADHD symptoms were assessed prior to initiation of each treatment and after 4 weeks.

Children and adults showed significantly larger improvement in inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity when taking viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with almost all patients preferring the former to the latter, according to results of the study.

In addition, close to one half of the study participants were taking a prior stimulant, and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment. Viloxazine’s effects were more rapid than were those of atomoxetine.

“It is timely to have a rapidly acting, and highly effective nonstimulant option across the full spectrum of ADHD symptoms, for both children and adults, in light of recent stimulant shortages and the new [Food and Drug Administration] boxed warnings regarding increased mortality associated with overuse of stimulants” study investigator Maxwell Z. Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, N.J., said in an interview.
 

Nonstimulant treatment options

Study coauthor Richard L. Price, MD, noted that the study was conducted to find a more acceptable alternative to psychostimulant treatments for ADHD, which are currently considered the “gold standard.”

Although they are effective, said Dr. Price, they are fraught with adverse effects, including appetite suppression, insomnia, exacerbation of mood disorders, anxiety, tics, or misuse.

Atomoxetine, a nonstimulant option, has been around for a few decades and is often used in combination with a stimulant medication. However, he said, the drug has a mild effect, requires frequent dosage adjustment, takes a long time to work, and people have “soured” on its utility, Dr. Price added.

Like atomoxetine, viloxazine is a selective norepinephrine inhibitor that has been used an antidepressant in Europe for 30 years. It was recently reformulated as an extended-release medication and approved by the FDA for pediatric and adult ADHD.

However, unlike atomoxetine, viloxazine is associated with increased prefrontal cortex 5-hydroxytrytamine, norepinephrine, and dopamine levels in vivo.

There have been no head-to-head trials comparing the two agents. However, even in head-to-head ADHD medication trials, the agents that are under investigation are typically compared in matched patients. The current investigators wanted to compare the two agents in the same patients whose insurers mandate a trial of generic atomoxetine prior to covering branded viloxazine.

“We wanted to find out whether patients taking atomoxetine for ADHD combined type would experience improvement in ADHD symptoms following voluntary, open-label switch to viloxazine,” said Dr. Price.

The researchers studied 50 patients who presented with ADHD combined type and had no other psychiatric, medical, or substance-related comorbidities or prior exposure to atomoxetine or viloxazine.

The study included 35 children (mean age, 11.9 ± 2.9 years; 94.3% male) and 15 adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 9.0 years; 73.3% male). Of these, 42.9% and 73.3%, respectively, were taking concurrent stimulants.

Patients received mean doses of atomoxetine once daily followed by viloxazine once daily after a 5-day washout period between the two drugs. Participants were seen weekly for titration and monitoring.

At baseline, the pediatric ADHD–Rating Scale 5 (ADHD-RS-5) and the Adult Investigator Symptoms Rating Scale (AISRS) were completed, then again after 4 weeks of treatment with atomoxetine (or upon earlier response or discontinuation due to side effects, whichever came first), and 5 days after discontinuing atomoxetine, which “reestablished the baseline score.” The same protocol was then repeated with viloxazine.
 

‘Paradigm shift’

At baseline, the total ADHD-RS-5 mean score was 40.3 ± 10.3. Improvements at 4 weeks were greater in viloxazine vs atomoxetine, with scores of 13.9 ± 10.2 vs 33.1 ± 12.1, respectively (t = -10.12, P < .00001). In inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, the t values were –8.57 and –9.87, respectively (both P values < .0001).

Similarly, from the baseline total, AISRS mean score of 37.3 ± 11.8, improvements were greater on viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with scores of 11.9 ± 9.4 vs. 28.8 ± 14.9, respectively (t = −4.18, P = .0009 overall; for inattention, t = −3.50, P > .004 and for hyperactivity/impulsivity, t = 3.90, P > .002).

By 2 weeks, 86% of patients taking viloxazine reported a positive response vs. 14% when taking atomoxetine.

Side effects were lower in viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with 36% of patients discontinuing treatment with atomoxetine because of side effects that included gastrointestinal upset, irritability, fatigue, and insomnia vs. 4% who discontinued viloxazine because of fatigue.

Almost all participants (96%) preferred viloxazine over atomoxetine and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment following stabilization on viloxazine.

“These were not small differences,” said Dr. Richard L. Price. “These were clinically and statistically meaningful differences.”

The findings could represent “a paradigm shift for the field” because “we always think of starting ADHD treatment with stimulants, but perhaps treatment with viloxazine could help patients to avoid stimulants entirely,” he suggested.
 

Real-world study

Commenting for this article, Greg Mattingly, MD, associate clinical professor, Washington University, St. Louis, called it “a timely addition to the clinical literature where for the first time ever we have two nonstimulant options approved for adults with ADHD.”

This real-world clinic study “yields many answers,” said Dr. Mattingly, president-elect of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD), who was not involved with the study.

“Simply put, this real-world study of 50 clinic patients found that viloxazine ER had faster onset, was significantly more effective, and was preferred by 96% of patients as compared to atomoxetine,” he said.

“Another intriguing part of the study that will be of high interest to both patients and providers was that, of those initially treated concurrently with stimulant and viloxazine ER, 85% were able to discontinue their stimulant medication,” Dr. Mattingly added.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The open access fee was funded by the investigators. Dr. Maxwell Z. Price certifies that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Dr. Richard L. Price has received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Idorsia, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Dr. Mattingly reports financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies, which are listed in full in the paper.

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

Children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show greater improvement in symptoms with viloxazine extended release (ER) compared with treatment with atomoxetine, new research suggests.

Investigators studied patients who started out taking atomoxetine and, after a washout period, initiated treatment with viloxazine. Participants’ ADHD symptoms were assessed prior to initiation of each treatment and after 4 weeks.

Children and adults showed significantly larger improvement in inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity when taking viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with almost all patients preferring the former to the latter, according to results of the study.

In addition, close to one half of the study participants were taking a prior stimulant, and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment. Viloxazine’s effects were more rapid than were those of atomoxetine.

“It is timely to have a rapidly acting, and highly effective nonstimulant option across the full spectrum of ADHD symptoms, for both children and adults, in light of recent stimulant shortages and the new [Food and Drug Administration] boxed warnings regarding increased mortality associated with overuse of stimulants” study investigator Maxwell Z. Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, N.J., said in an interview.
 

Nonstimulant treatment options

Study coauthor Richard L. Price, MD, noted that the study was conducted to find a more acceptable alternative to psychostimulant treatments for ADHD, which are currently considered the “gold standard.”

Although they are effective, said Dr. Price, they are fraught with adverse effects, including appetite suppression, insomnia, exacerbation of mood disorders, anxiety, tics, or misuse.

Atomoxetine, a nonstimulant option, has been around for a few decades and is often used in combination with a stimulant medication. However, he said, the drug has a mild effect, requires frequent dosage adjustment, takes a long time to work, and people have “soured” on its utility, Dr. Price added.

Like atomoxetine, viloxazine is a selective norepinephrine inhibitor that has been used an antidepressant in Europe for 30 years. It was recently reformulated as an extended-release medication and approved by the FDA for pediatric and adult ADHD.

However, unlike atomoxetine, viloxazine is associated with increased prefrontal cortex 5-hydroxytrytamine, norepinephrine, and dopamine levels in vivo.

There have been no head-to-head trials comparing the two agents. However, even in head-to-head ADHD medication trials, the agents that are under investigation are typically compared in matched patients. The current investigators wanted to compare the two agents in the same patients whose insurers mandate a trial of generic atomoxetine prior to covering branded viloxazine.

“We wanted to find out whether patients taking atomoxetine for ADHD combined type would experience improvement in ADHD symptoms following voluntary, open-label switch to viloxazine,” said Dr. Price.

The researchers studied 50 patients who presented with ADHD combined type and had no other psychiatric, medical, or substance-related comorbidities or prior exposure to atomoxetine or viloxazine.

The study included 35 children (mean age, 11.9 ± 2.9 years; 94.3% male) and 15 adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 9.0 years; 73.3% male). Of these, 42.9% and 73.3%, respectively, were taking concurrent stimulants.

Patients received mean doses of atomoxetine once daily followed by viloxazine once daily after a 5-day washout period between the two drugs. Participants were seen weekly for titration and monitoring.

At baseline, the pediatric ADHD–Rating Scale 5 (ADHD-RS-5) and the Adult Investigator Symptoms Rating Scale (AISRS) were completed, then again after 4 weeks of treatment with atomoxetine (or upon earlier response or discontinuation due to side effects, whichever came first), and 5 days after discontinuing atomoxetine, which “reestablished the baseline score.” The same protocol was then repeated with viloxazine.
 

‘Paradigm shift’

At baseline, the total ADHD-RS-5 mean score was 40.3 ± 10.3. Improvements at 4 weeks were greater in viloxazine vs atomoxetine, with scores of 13.9 ± 10.2 vs 33.1 ± 12.1, respectively (t = -10.12, P < .00001). In inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, the t values were –8.57 and –9.87, respectively (both P values < .0001).

Similarly, from the baseline total, AISRS mean score of 37.3 ± 11.8, improvements were greater on viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with scores of 11.9 ± 9.4 vs. 28.8 ± 14.9, respectively (t = −4.18, P = .0009 overall; for inattention, t = −3.50, P > .004 and for hyperactivity/impulsivity, t = 3.90, P > .002).

By 2 weeks, 86% of patients taking viloxazine reported a positive response vs. 14% when taking atomoxetine.

Side effects were lower in viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with 36% of patients discontinuing treatment with atomoxetine because of side effects that included gastrointestinal upset, irritability, fatigue, and insomnia vs. 4% who discontinued viloxazine because of fatigue.

Almost all participants (96%) preferred viloxazine over atomoxetine and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment following stabilization on viloxazine.

“These were not small differences,” said Dr. Richard L. Price. “These were clinically and statistically meaningful differences.”

The findings could represent “a paradigm shift for the field” because “we always think of starting ADHD treatment with stimulants, but perhaps treatment with viloxazine could help patients to avoid stimulants entirely,” he suggested.
 

Real-world study

Commenting for this article, Greg Mattingly, MD, associate clinical professor, Washington University, St. Louis, called it “a timely addition to the clinical literature where for the first time ever we have two nonstimulant options approved for adults with ADHD.”

This real-world clinic study “yields many answers,” said Dr. Mattingly, president-elect of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD), who was not involved with the study.

“Simply put, this real-world study of 50 clinic patients found that viloxazine ER had faster onset, was significantly more effective, and was preferred by 96% of patients as compared to atomoxetine,” he said.

“Another intriguing part of the study that will be of high interest to both patients and providers was that, of those initially treated concurrently with stimulant and viloxazine ER, 85% were able to discontinue their stimulant medication,” Dr. Mattingly added.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The open access fee was funded by the investigators. Dr. Maxwell Z. Price certifies that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Dr. Richard L. Price has received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Idorsia, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Dr. Mattingly reports financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies, which are listed in full in the paper.

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

Children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show greater improvement in symptoms with viloxazine extended release (ER) compared with treatment with atomoxetine, new research suggests.

Investigators studied patients who started out taking atomoxetine and, after a washout period, initiated treatment with viloxazine. Participants’ ADHD symptoms were assessed prior to initiation of each treatment and after 4 weeks.

Children and adults showed significantly larger improvement in inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity when taking viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with almost all patients preferring the former to the latter, according to results of the study.

In addition, close to one half of the study participants were taking a prior stimulant, and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment. Viloxazine’s effects were more rapid than were those of atomoxetine.

“It is timely to have a rapidly acting, and highly effective nonstimulant option across the full spectrum of ADHD symptoms, for both children and adults, in light of recent stimulant shortages and the new [Food and Drug Administration] boxed warnings regarding increased mortality associated with overuse of stimulants” study investigator Maxwell Z. Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, N.J., said in an interview.
 

Nonstimulant treatment options

Study coauthor Richard L. Price, MD, noted that the study was conducted to find a more acceptable alternative to psychostimulant treatments for ADHD, which are currently considered the “gold standard.”

Although they are effective, said Dr. Price, they are fraught with adverse effects, including appetite suppression, insomnia, exacerbation of mood disorders, anxiety, tics, or misuse.

Atomoxetine, a nonstimulant option, has been around for a few decades and is often used in combination with a stimulant medication. However, he said, the drug has a mild effect, requires frequent dosage adjustment, takes a long time to work, and people have “soured” on its utility, Dr. Price added.

Like atomoxetine, viloxazine is a selective norepinephrine inhibitor that has been used an antidepressant in Europe for 30 years. It was recently reformulated as an extended-release medication and approved by the FDA for pediatric and adult ADHD.

However, unlike atomoxetine, viloxazine is associated with increased prefrontal cortex 5-hydroxytrytamine, norepinephrine, and dopamine levels in vivo.

There have been no head-to-head trials comparing the two agents. However, even in head-to-head ADHD medication trials, the agents that are under investigation are typically compared in matched patients. The current investigators wanted to compare the two agents in the same patients whose insurers mandate a trial of generic atomoxetine prior to covering branded viloxazine.

“We wanted to find out whether patients taking atomoxetine for ADHD combined type would experience improvement in ADHD symptoms following voluntary, open-label switch to viloxazine,” said Dr. Price.

The researchers studied 50 patients who presented with ADHD combined type and had no other psychiatric, medical, or substance-related comorbidities or prior exposure to atomoxetine or viloxazine.

The study included 35 children (mean age, 11.9 ± 2.9 years; 94.3% male) and 15 adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 9.0 years; 73.3% male). Of these, 42.9% and 73.3%, respectively, were taking concurrent stimulants.

Patients received mean doses of atomoxetine once daily followed by viloxazine once daily after a 5-day washout period between the two drugs. Participants were seen weekly for titration and monitoring.

At baseline, the pediatric ADHD–Rating Scale 5 (ADHD-RS-5) and the Adult Investigator Symptoms Rating Scale (AISRS) were completed, then again after 4 weeks of treatment with atomoxetine (or upon earlier response or discontinuation due to side effects, whichever came first), and 5 days after discontinuing atomoxetine, which “reestablished the baseline score.” The same protocol was then repeated with viloxazine.
 

‘Paradigm shift’

At baseline, the total ADHD-RS-5 mean score was 40.3 ± 10.3. Improvements at 4 weeks were greater in viloxazine vs atomoxetine, with scores of 13.9 ± 10.2 vs 33.1 ± 12.1, respectively (t = -10.12, P < .00001). In inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, the t values were –8.57 and –9.87, respectively (both P values < .0001).

Similarly, from the baseline total, AISRS mean score of 37.3 ± 11.8, improvements were greater on viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with scores of 11.9 ± 9.4 vs. 28.8 ± 14.9, respectively (t = −4.18, P = .0009 overall; for inattention, t = −3.50, P > .004 and for hyperactivity/impulsivity, t = 3.90, P > .002).

By 2 weeks, 86% of patients taking viloxazine reported a positive response vs. 14% when taking atomoxetine.

Side effects were lower in viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with 36% of patients discontinuing treatment with atomoxetine because of side effects that included gastrointestinal upset, irritability, fatigue, and insomnia vs. 4% who discontinued viloxazine because of fatigue.

Almost all participants (96%) preferred viloxazine over atomoxetine and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment following stabilization on viloxazine.

“These were not small differences,” said Dr. Richard L. Price. “These were clinically and statistically meaningful differences.”

The findings could represent “a paradigm shift for the field” because “we always think of starting ADHD treatment with stimulants, but perhaps treatment with viloxazine could help patients to avoid stimulants entirely,” he suggested.
 

Real-world study

Commenting for this article, Greg Mattingly, MD, associate clinical professor, Washington University, St. Louis, called it “a timely addition to the clinical literature where for the first time ever we have two nonstimulant options approved for adults with ADHD.”

This real-world clinic study “yields many answers,” said Dr. Mattingly, president-elect of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD), who was not involved with the study.

“Simply put, this real-world study of 50 clinic patients found that viloxazine ER had faster onset, was significantly more effective, and was preferred by 96% of patients as compared to atomoxetine,” he said.

“Another intriguing part of the study that will be of high interest to both patients and providers was that, of those initially treated concurrently with stimulant and viloxazine ER, 85% were able to discontinue their stimulant medication,” Dr. Mattingly added.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The open access fee was funded by the investigators. Dr. Maxwell Z. Price certifies that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Dr. Richard L. Price has received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Idorsia, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Dr. Mattingly reports financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies, which are listed in full in the paper.

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

Twice-weekly subcutaneous ketamine injections are safe and highly effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), results of a randomized controlled phase 3 trial show.
 

University of New South Wales

“In this severely treatment-resistant population, of which 24% had failed to respond to treatment with electroconvulsive therapy, adequately dosed racemic ketamine produced benefits that were large, being both clinically and statistically superior to midazolam,” report the researchers, led by Colleen Loo, MD, MBBS, with Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry.


 

Individualized dosing

“Previously, most studies of racemic ketamine [administered] it by intravenous infusion over half an hour to several hours, which is a much more medically complex and expensive procedure,” Dr. Loo said in an interview.

The fact that subcutaneously administered ketamine was “highly effective” given by this practical and feasible route is a “major contribution to the field,” said Dr. Loo.

The Ketamine for Adult Depression trial assessed the acute efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of racemic ketamine or midazolam (active control) in 174 adults with TRD.

Initially, the trial tested a fixed dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine vs. 0.025 mg/kg midazolam (cohort 1; 68 patients). Dosing was subsequently revised, after the data safety monitoring board recommended flexible-dose ketamine (0.5-0.9 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.025-0.045 mg/kg) with response-guided dosing increments (cohort 2; 106 patients).

The primary outcome was remission defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale for Depression (MADRS) score ≤ 10 at week 4.

On this outcome, in the fixed-dose cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in remission rates between ketamine and midazolam (6.3% and 8.8%; odds ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.22-8.21; P = .76).

However, there was a significant difference in remission in the flexible-dose cohort, with remission rates 19.6% for ketamine vs. just 2% for midazolam (OR, 12.11; 95% CI, 2.12-69.17; P = .005).

“The study showed that individualized dose adjustment, based on clinical response, was very important in optimizing the benefit of ketamine,” said Dr. Loo.

“It meant that one, you are more likely to respond as you receive a higher dose if needed, and two, you don’t receive a higher dose than needed, given that side effects are also dose-related,” she said.

Results also favored flexible-dose ketamine over midazolam for the secondary outcomes of response (≥ 50% reduction in MADRS: 29% vs. 4%; P = .001) and remission defined by a less rigid definition (MADRS ≤ 12: 22% vs. 4%; P = .007).

The results also confirm that the antidepressant effects of ketamine are not sustained when treatment stops.

“The study included careful follow-up for 4 weeks after the end of treatment. This is an important contribution to the literature, as it shows that ongoing treatment beyond the 4 weeks will be necessary for most people to maintain the benefits of ketamine treatment if you respond to the treatment. This study provided clear evidence of this, for racemic ketamine,” said Dr. Loo.

Overall, ketamine was well-tolerated, with the well-established acute effects of ketamine observed in both cohorts. The acute effects resolved or returned to pretreatment levels within the 2-hour observation period. No one required medical intervention, and there was no evidence of cognitive impairment.
 

Rigorous research, compelling data

Reached for comment, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said the data are “compelling with respect to efficacy and safety of subcutaneous ketamine in adults with major depression.”

Dr. McIntyre said the data are “highly relevant” for several reasons. “First, it is the most rigorous study conducted to date with subcutaneous administration of ketamine for adults living with treatment-resistant depression.”

Second, it “demonstrates the efficacy and safety of this route of delivery, which until now has not been studied with this level of rigor and which is a more scalable and accessible approach to administer ketamine to suitable candidates,” Dr. McIntyre said.

The study was funded by a competitive research grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Loo has disclosed relationships with Douglas Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Cilag and is the medical director of neurostimulation and interventional psychiatry at Ramsay Health Care. Dr. McIntyre has received speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

Twice-weekly subcutaneous ketamine injections are safe and highly effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), results of a randomized controlled phase 3 trial show.
 

University of New South Wales

“In this severely treatment-resistant population, of which 24% had failed to respond to treatment with electroconvulsive therapy, adequately dosed racemic ketamine produced benefits that were large, being both clinically and statistically superior to midazolam,” report the researchers, led by Colleen Loo, MD, MBBS, with Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry.


 

Individualized dosing

“Previously, most studies of racemic ketamine [administered] it by intravenous infusion over half an hour to several hours, which is a much more medically complex and expensive procedure,” Dr. Loo said in an interview.

The fact that subcutaneously administered ketamine was “highly effective” given by this practical and feasible route is a “major contribution to the field,” said Dr. Loo.

The Ketamine for Adult Depression trial assessed the acute efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of racemic ketamine or midazolam (active control) in 174 adults with TRD.

Initially, the trial tested a fixed dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine vs. 0.025 mg/kg midazolam (cohort 1; 68 patients). Dosing was subsequently revised, after the data safety monitoring board recommended flexible-dose ketamine (0.5-0.9 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.025-0.045 mg/kg) with response-guided dosing increments (cohort 2; 106 patients).

The primary outcome was remission defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale for Depression (MADRS) score ≤ 10 at week 4.

On this outcome, in the fixed-dose cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in remission rates between ketamine and midazolam (6.3% and 8.8%; odds ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.22-8.21; P = .76).

However, there was a significant difference in remission in the flexible-dose cohort, with remission rates 19.6% for ketamine vs. just 2% for midazolam (OR, 12.11; 95% CI, 2.12-69.17; P = .005).

“The study showed that individualized dose adjustment, based on clinical response, was very important in optimizing the benefit of ketamine,” said Dr. Loo.

“It meant that one, you are more likely to respond as you receive a higher dose if needed, and two, you don’t receive a higher dose than needed, given that side effects are also dose-related,” she said.

Results also favored flexible-dose ketamine over midazolam for the secondary outcomes of response (≥ 50% reduction in MADRS: 29% vs. 4%; P = .001) and remission defined by a less rigid definition (MADRS ≤ 12: 22% vs. 4%; P = .007).

The results also confirm that the antidepressant effects of ketamine are not sustained when treatment stops.

“The study included careful follow-up for 4 weeks after the end of treatment. This is an important contribution to the literature, as it shows that ongoing treatment beyond the 4 weeks will be necessary for most people to maintain the benefits of ketamine treatment if you respond to the treatment. This study provided clear evidence of this, for racemic ketamine,” said Dr. Loo.

Overall, ketamine was well-tolerated, with the well-established acute effects of ketamine observed in both cohorts. The acute effects resolved or returned to pretreatment levels within the 2-hour observation period. No one required medical intervention, and there was no evidence of cognitive impairment.
 

Rigorous research, compelling data

Reached for comment, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said the data are “compelling with respect to efficacy and safety of subcutaneous ketamine in adults with major depression.”

Dr. McIntyre said the data are “highly relevant” for several reasons. “First, it is the most rigorous study conducted to date with subcutaneous administration of ketamine for adults living with treatment-resistant depression.”

Second, it “demonstrates the efficacy and safety of this route of delivery, which until now has not been studied with this level of rigor and which is a more scalable and accessible approach to administer ketamine to suitable candidates,” Dr. McIntyre said.

The study was funded by a competitive research grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Loo has disclosed relationships with Douglas Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Cilag and is the medical director of neurostimulation and interventional psychiatry at Ramsay Health Care. Dr. McIntyre has received speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

Twice-weekly subcutaneous ketamine injections are safe and highly effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), results of a randomized controlled phase 3 trial show.
 

University of New South Wales

“In this severely treatment-resistant population, of which 24% had failed to respond to treatment with electroconvulsive therapy, adequately dosed racemic ketamine produced benefits that were large, being both clinically and statistically superior to midazolam,” report the researchers, led by Colleen Loo, MD, MBBS, with Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry.


 

Individualized dosing

“Previously, most studies of racemic ketamine [administered] it by intravenous infusion over half an hour to several hours, which is a much more medically complex and expensive procedure,” Dr. Loo said in an interview.

The fact that subcutaneously administered ketamine was “highly effective” given by this practical and feasible route is a “major contribution to the field,” said Dr. Loo.

The Ketamine for Adult Depression trial assessed the acute efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of racemic ketamine or midazolam (active control) in 174 adults with TRD.

Initially, the trial tested a fixed dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine vs. 0.025 mg/kg midazolam (cohort 1; 68 patients). Dosing was subsequently revised, after the data safety monitoring board recommended flexible-dose ketamine (0.5-0.9 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.025-0.045 mg/kg) with response-guided dosing increments (cohort 2; 106 patients).

The primary outcome was remission defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale for Depression (MADRS) score ≤ 10 at week 4.

On this outcome, in the fixed-dose cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in remission rates between ketamine and midazolam (6.3% and 8.8%; odds ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.22-8.21; P = .76).

However, there was a significant difference in remission in the flexible-dose cohort, with remission rates 19.6% for ketamine vs. just 2% for midazolam (OR, 12.11; 95% CI, 2.12-69.17; P = .005).

“The study showed that individualized dose adjustment, based on clinical response, was very important in optimizing the benefit of ketamine,” said Dr. Loo.

“It meant that one, you are more likely to respond as you receive a higher dose if needed, and two, you don’t receive a higher dose than needed, given that side effects are also dose-related,” she said.

Results also favored flexible-dose ketamine over midazolam for the secondary outcomes of response (≥ 50% reduction in MADRS: 29% vs. 4%; P = .001) and remission defined by a less rigid definition (MADRS ≤ 12: 22% vs. 4%; P = .007).

The results also confirm that the antidepressant effects of ketamine are not sustained when treatment stops.

“The study included careful follow-up for 4 weeks after the end of treatment. This is an important contribution to the literature, as it shows that ongoing treatment beyond the 4 weeks will be necessary for most people to maintain the benefits of ketamine treatment if you respond to the treatment. This study provided clear evidence of this, for racemic ketamine,” said Dr. Loo.

Overall, ketamine was well-tolerated, with the well-established acute effects of ketamine observed in both cohorts. The acute effects resolved or returned to pretreatment levels within the 2-hour observation period. No one required medical intervention, and there was no evidence of cognitive impairment.
 

Rigorous research, compelling data

Reached for comment, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said the data are “compelling with respect to efficacy and safety of subcutaneous ketamine in adults with major depression.”

Dr. McIntyre said the data are “highly relevant” for several reasons. “First, it is the most rigorous study conducted to date with subcutaneous administration of ketamine for adults living with treatment-resistant depression.”

Second, it “demonstrates the efficacy and safety of this route of delivery, which until now has not been studied with this level of rigor and which is a more scalable and accessible approach to administer ketamine to suitable candidates,” Dr. McIntyre said.

The study was funded by a competitive research grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Loo has disclosed relationships with Douglas Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Cilag and is the medical director of neurostimulation and interventional psychiatry at Ramsay Health Care. Dr. McIntyre has received speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

A novel type of talk therapy that pays as much attention to building positive mood as it does to reducing depressed mood may work as well, if not better, than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for anhedonic depression, results of a pilot trial suggest.
 

While the trial was not adequately powered to test if augmented depression therapy (ADepT) is superior to CBT, “results nevertheless were encouraging,” lead author Barnaby Dunn, PhD, professor of clinical psychology, University of Exeter (England), said in an interview.

The trial showed that ADepT is feasible, acceptable, and “not worse than CBT,” also showing the “potential to be better than CBT in clinical outcomes,” Dr. Dunn said.

“By building positive mood, ADepT may help individuals stay well for longer in the future,” he noted.

The early results were published online in eClinicalMedicine. 
 

Dual approach

“There are two sides to the depression coin – heightened negative mood and reduced positive mood. Classic CBT focuses mainly on repairing negative mood and pays less attention to building positive mood,” Dr. Dunn explained.

He said when he speaks to clients about what is key to recovery from depression, they often mention the importance of reconnecting to the positive.

“ADepT pays equal attention to building the positives as it does reducing the negatives, giving clients new skills to ‘act opposite’ to old ways of thinking and feeling that can stop them making the most of opportunities and being able to experience well-being,” Dr. Dunn said.

ADepT is an individual therapy delivered over 15 acute and 5 booster sessions, which is similar in “dose” to classic CBT, Dr. Dunn said.

The primary focus of ADepT is building well-being (capacity to experience pleasure, meaning, and social connection in life) and functional recovery, with depression conceptualized as patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that serve as barriers to achieving this goal.

Patients work with trained therapists to overcome barriers to being resilient (managing challenges to reduce negative affect) and thriving (taking opportunities to maximize positive affect).

A total of 82 adults with a moderate to severe current major depressive episode with features of anhedonia took part in the pilot trial. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to either 20 individual sessions of ADepT or CBT, delivered in the University of Exeter Accessing Evidence Based Psychological Therapies outpatient clinic.

Researcher-blinded assessments were completed at intake and after 6, 12, and 18 months. Coprimary outcomes were depression, measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire and well-being, gauged with the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale at 6 months.

Within-group analyses showed that both ADepT and CBT led to clinically meaningful improvements in depression, well-being, and all other secondary outcomes, including measures of anhedonia, Dr. Dunn said.

Between-group effects favored ADepT over CBT for depression and well-being. “For example, about 80% of clients no longer met diagnostic criteria for depression after ADepT, compared to around 56% of clients in CBT,” Dr. Dunn said.

“There were also numerically bigger gains in well-being and reductions in anhedonia in ADepT relative to CBT. A greater number of clients who recovered at the end of therapy stayed well over the longer term in ADepT relative to CBT,” he noted.

ADepT costs the same amount to deliver as CBT “but resulted in greater gains in quality of life, meaning it showed a high probability of being cost effective,” Dr. Dunn said.

ADepT has also been designed so that trained CBT therapists will be able to deliver it with minimal additional training.

“The next step,” said Dr. Dunn, “is a bigger definitive trial, which will formally test if ADepT is clinically superior to and better value for money than CBT when delivering ADepT in more routine care settings [U.K. NHS clinics rather than specialist university mood disorder center].”

The trial was funded by a Career Development Fellowship awarded to Dr. Dunn by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Dunn has a book contract with Guilford Press to write the ADepT treatment manual and receives occasional payment or honoraria (including support for attending meetings) for delivering workshops and talks on ADepT.

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

A novel type of talk therapy that pays as much attention to building positive mood as it does to reducing depressed mood may work as well, if not better, than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for anhedonic depression, results of a pilot trial suggest.
 

While the trial was not adequately powered to test if augmented depression therapy (ADepT) is superior to CBT, “results nevertheless were encouraging,” lead author Barnaby Dunn, PhD, professor of clinical psychology, University of Exeter (England), said in an interview.

The trial showed that ADepT is feasible, acceptable, and “not worse than CBT,” also showing the “potential to be better than CBT in clinical outcomes,” Dr. Dunn said.

“By building positive mood, ADepT may help individuals stay well for longer in the future,” he noted.

The early results were published online in eClinicalMedicine. 
 

Dual approach

“There are two sides to the depression coin – heightened negative mood and reduced positive mood. Classic CBT focuses mainly on repairing negative mood and pays less attention to building positive mood,” Dr. Dunn explained.

He said when he speaks to clients about what is key to recovery from depression, they often mention the importance of reconnecting to the positive.

“ADepT pays equal attention to building the positives as it does reducing the negatives, giving clients new skills to ‘act opposite’ to old ways of thinking and feeling that can stop them making the most of opportunities and being able to experience well-being,” Dr. Dunn said.

ADepT is an individual therapy delivered over 15 acute and 5 booster sessions, which is similar in “dose” to classic CBT, Dr. Dunn said.

The primary focus of ADepT is building well-being (capacity to experience pleasure, meaning, and social connection in life) and functional recovery, with depression conceptualized as patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that serve as barriers to achieving this goal.

Patients work with trained therapists to overcome barriers to being resilient (managing challenges to reduce negative affect) and thriving (taking opportunities to maximize positive affect).

A total of 82 adults with a moderate to severe current major depressive episode with features of anhedonia took part in the pilot trial. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to either 20 individual sessions of ADepT or CBT, delivered in the University of Exeter Accessing Evidence Based Psychological Therapies outpatient clinic.

Researcher-blinded assessments were completed at intake and after 6, 12, and 18 months. Coprimary outcomes were depression, measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire and well-being, gauged with the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale at 6 months.

Within-group analyses showed that both ADepT and CBT led to clinically meaningful improvements in depression, well-being, and all other secondary outcomes, including measures of anhedonia, Dr. Dunn said.

Between-group effects favored ADepT over CBT for depression and well-being. “For example, about 80% of clients no longer met diagnostic criteria for depression after ADepT, compared to around 56% of clients in CBT,” Dr. Dunn said.

“There were also numerically bigger gains in well-being and reductions in anhedonia in ADepT relative to CBT. A greater number of clients who recovered at the end of therapy stayed well over the longer term in ADepT relative to CBT,” he noted.

ADepT costs the same amount to deliver as CBT “but resulted in greater gains in quality of life, meaning it showed a high probability of being cost effective,” Dr. Dunn said.

ADepT has also been designed so that trained CBT therapists will be able to deliver it with minimal additional training.

“The next step,” said Dr. Dunn, “is a bigger definitive trial, which will formally test if ADepT is clinically superior to and better value for money than CBT when delivering ADepT in more routine care settings [U.K. NHS clinics rather than specialist university mood disorder center].”

The trial was funded by a Career Development Fellowship awarded to Dr. Dunn by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Dunn has a book contract with Guilford Press to write the ADepT treatment manual and receives occasional payment or honoraria (including support for attending meetings) for delivering workshops and talks on ADepT.

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

A novel type of talk therapy that pays as much attention to building positive mood as it does to reducing depressed mood may work as well, if not better, than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for anhedonic depression, results of a pilot trial suggest.
 

While the trial was not adequately powered to test if augmented depression therapy (ADepT) is superior to CBT, “results nevertheless were encouraging,” lead author Barnaby Dunn, PhD, professor of clinical psychology, University of Exeter (England), said in an interview.

The trial showed that ADepT is feasible, acceptable, and “not worse than CBT,” also showing the “potential to be better than CBT in clinical outcomes,” Dr. Dunn said.

“By building positive mood, ADepT may help individuals stay well for longer in the future,” he noted.

The early results were published online in eClinicalMedicine. 
 

Dual approach

“There are two sides to the depression coin – heightened negative mood and reduced positive mood. Classic CBT focuses mainly on repairing negative mood and pays less attention to building positive mood,” Dr. Dunn explained.

He said when he speaks to clients about what is key to recovery from depression, they often mention the importance of reconnecting to the positive.

“ADepT pays equal attention to building the positives as it does reducing the negatives, giving clients new skills to ‘act opposite’ to old ways of thinking and feeling that can stop them making the most of opportunities and being able to experience well-being,” Dr. Dunn said.

ADepT is an individual therapy delivered over 15 acute and 5 booster sessions, which is similar in “dose” to classic CBT, Dr. Dunn said.

The primary focus of ADepT is building well-being (capacity to experience pleasure, meaning, and social connection in life) and functional recovery, with depression conceptualized as patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that serve as barriers to achieving this goal.

Patients work with trained therapists to overcome barriers to being resilient (managing challenges to reduce negative affect) and thriving (taking opportunities to maximize positive affect).

A total of 82 adults with a moderate to severe current major depressive episode with features of anhedonia took part in the pilot trial. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to either 20 individual sessions of ADepT or CBT, delivered in the University of Exeter Accessing Evidence Based Psychological Therapies outpatient clinic.

Researcher-blinded assessments were completed at intake and after 6, 12, and 18 months. Coprimary outcomes were depression, measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire and well-being, gauged with the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale at 6 months.

Within-group analyses showed that both ADepT and CBT led to clinically meaningful improvements in depression, well-being, and all other secondary outcomes, including measures of anhedonia, Dr. Dunn said.

Between-group effects favored ADepT over CBT for depression and well-being. “For example, about 80% of clients no longer met diagnostic criteria for depression after ADepT, compared to around 56% of clients in CBT,” Dr. Dunn said.

“There were also numerically bigger gains in well-being and reductions in anhedonia in ADepT relative to CBT. A greater number of clients who recovered at the end of therapy stayed well over the longer term in ADepT relative to CBT,” he noted.

ADepT costs the same amount to deliver as CBT “but resulted in greater gains in quality of life, meaning it showed a high probability of being cost effective,” Dr. Dunn said.

ADepT has also been designed so that trained CBT therapists will be able to deliver it with minimal additional training.

“The next step,” said Dr. Dunn, “is a bigger definitive trial, which will formally test if ADepT is clinically superior to and better value for money than CBT when delivering ADepT in more routine care settings [U.K. NHS clinics rather than specialist university mood disorder center].”

The trial was funded by a Career Development Fellowship awarded to Dr. Dunn by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Dunn has a book contract with Guilford Press to write the ADepT treatment manual and receives occasional payment or honoraria (including support for attending meetings) for delivering workshops and talks on ADepT.

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

Two-thirds of Americans support regulated use of psychedelics for therapeutic purposes, results of a new poll show.

It is a surprisingly large percentage, said officials at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Science of Psychedelics, which conducted the online survey of 1,500 registered voters in early June.

Courtesy Alia Malley

“That is a stunning number,” said Michael Pollan, cofounder of the center, and author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a book that explored potential uses of psychedelics.

In a briefing with reporters, Mr. Pollan said that he believes the large support base, in part, reflects campaigns that have “been successful by highlighting the effectiveness of psychedelics as therapy for mental illness.”

However, the poll also showed that 61% of voters said that they do not perceive psychedelics as “good for society,” and 69% do not perceive them as “something for people like me.”

These negative sentiments “suggest a fragile kind of support – the kind of support where you’re only hearing one side of the story,” said Mr. Pollan.

Still, poll respondents supported other potential policy changes, including 56% in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration vetting and approving psychedelics so they could be available by prescription.
 

50% have tried psychedelics

Almost 80% said that it should be easier for researchers to study psychedelics, and just under one-half said that they backed removing criminal penalties for personal use and possession.

The poll results also show that almost half of respondents had heard about psychedelics recently, with 48% saying they had heard about the drugs’ use in treating mental illness.

Respondents who were most familiar with and positive about psychedelics tended to be White, male, aged 30-50 years, liberal, highly educated, living in a Western state, and have little to no religious or spiritual practice.

Overall, 52% of survey respondents said that they or someone close to them had used a psychedelic, with almost half of that use coming in the past 5 years. Some 40% said that the use had been more than a decade ago.

Almost three-quarters of psychedelic use was reported as recreational, but the second-biggest category was therapeutic use at 39%. About one-third of respondents said that they or someone close to them had microdosed.

Conservative voters had lower levels of awareness and first-degree connection use as well as the least amount of support for regulated therapeutic use, with only 45% saying they would back such a policy, compared with 80% of liberal voters and 66% of moderate voters.

Black individuals were the least likely to be familiar with psychedelics: Just 29% said that they had heard a little or a lot about the drugs, compared with 39% of Latinx individuals and 51% of White individuals. And just one-quarter reported first-degree use, compared with half of Latinx individuals and 56% of White individuals.
 

Who should be eligible?

When asked who should be eligible for treatment with psychedelics, 80% said that they were comfortable with its use for those with terminal illnesses. More than two-thirds expressed comfort with the drugs being used to help veterans and people with treatment-resistant depression and anxiety.

Less than one-half of respondents said that psychedelics should be available to everyone older than 21 years. And voters seemed to be less inclined to say psychedelics should be used to treat people with addiction, with just 45% indicating that they were very or somewhat comfortable with that use.

Mr. Pollan said that reflects perhaps some lack of knowledge or education.

“The story about addiction and psychedelics hasn’t gotten out,” he said. “I kind of get that intuitively the idea of using a drug to treat a drug doesn’t sound right to a lot of people. But in fact, there’s good evidence it works,” Mr. Pollan said.

Respondents said that doctors, nurses, and scientists were the most trusted source of information about psychedelics, whereas the FDA received lower confidence. Law enforcement was least trusted by liberals and most trusted by conservatives.

Mr. Pollan noted the reversal in attitudes, with Americans mostly now looking to the scientific and medical establishment for guidance on psychedelics.

“We went from a counterculture drug to something that is being taken seriously by scientists as a potential therapy,” he said.

The poll’s margin of error was ± 2.5%.

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

Two-thirds of Americans support regulated use of psychedelics for therapeutic purposes, results of a new poll show.

It is a surprisingly large percentage, said officials at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Science of Psychedelics, which conducted the online survey of 1,500 registered voters in early June.

Courtesy Alia Malley

“That is a stunning number,” said Michael Pollan, cofounder of the center, and author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a book that explored potential uses of psychedelics.

In a briefing with reporters, Mr. Pollan said that he believes the large support base, in part, reflects campaigns that have “been successful by highlighting the effectiveness of psychedelics as therapy for mental illness.”

However, the poll also showed that 61% of voters said that they do not perceive psychedelics as “good for society,” and 69% do not perceive them as “something for people like me.”

These negative sentiments “suggest a fragile kind of support – the kind of support where you’re only hearing one side of the story,” said Mr. Pollan.

Still, poll respondents supported other potential policy changes, including 56% in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration vetting and approving psychedelics so they could be available by prescription.
 

50% have tried psychedelics

Almost 80% said that it should be easier for researchers to study psychedelics, and just under one-half said that they backed removing criminal penalties for personal use and possession.

The poll results also show that almost half of respondents had heard about psychedelics recently, with 48% saying they had heard about the drugs’ use in treating mental illness.

Respondents who were most familiar with and positive about psychedelics tended to be White, male, aged 30-50 years, liberal, highly educated, living in a Western state, and have little to no religious or spiritual practice.

Overall, 52% of survey respondents said that they or someone close to them had used a psychedelic, with almost half of that use coming in the past 5 years. Some 40% said that the use had been more than a decade ago.

Almost three-quarters of psychedelic use was reported as recreational, but the second-biggest category was therapeutic use at 39%. About one-third of respondents said that they or someone close to them had microdosed.

Conservative voters had lower levels of awareness and first-degree connection use as well as the least amount of support for regulated therapeutic use, with only 45% saying they would back such a policy, compared with 80% of liberal voters and 66% of moderate voters.

Black individuals were the least likely to be familiar with psychedelics: Just 29% said that they had heard a little or a lot about the drugs, compared with 39% of Latinx individuals and 51% of White individuals. And just one-quarter reported first-degree use, compared with half of Latinx individuals and 56% of White individuals.
 

Who should be eligible?

When asked who should be eligible for treatment with psychedelics, 80% said that they were comfortable with its use for those with terminal illnesses. More than two-thirds expressed comfort with the drugs being used to help veterans and people with treatment-resistant depression and anxiety.

Less than one-half of respondents said that psychedelics should be available to everyone older than 21 years. And voters seemed to be less inclined to say psychedelics should be used to treat people with addiction, with just 45% indicating that they were very or somewhat comfortable with that use.

Mr. Pollan said that reflects perhaps some lack of knowledge or education.

“The story about addiction and psychedelics hasn’t gotten out,” he said. “I kind of get that intuitively the idea of using a drug to treat a drug doesn’t sound right to a lot of people. But in fact, there’s good evidence it works,” Mr. Pollan said.

Respondents said that doctors, nurses, and scientists were the most trusted source of information about psychedelics, whereas the FDA received lower confidence. Law enforcement was least trusted by liberals and most trusted by conservatives.

Mr. Pollan noted the reversal in attitudes, with Americans mostly now looking to the scientific and medical establishment for guidance on psychedelics.

“We went from a counterculture drug to something that is being taken seriously by scientists as a potential therapy,” he said.

The poll’s margin of error was ± 2.5%.

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

Two-thirds of Americans support regulated use of psychedelics for therapeutic purposes, results of a new poll show.

It is a surprisingly large percentage, said officials at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Science of Psychedelics, which conducted the online survey of 1,500 registered voters in early June.

Courtesy Alia Malley

“That is a stunning number,” said Michael Pollan, cofounder of the center, and author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a book that explored potential uses of psychedelics.

In a briefing with reporters, Mr. Pollan said that he believes the large support base, in part, reflects campaigns that have “been successful by highlighting the effectiveness of psychedelics as therapy for mental illness.”

However, the poll also showed that 61% of voters said that they do not perceive psychedelics as “good for society,” and 69% do not perceive them as “something for people like me.”

These negative sentiments “suggest a fragile kind of support – the kind of support where you’re only hearing one side of the story,” said Mr. Pollan.

Still, poll respondents supported other potential policy changes, including 56% in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration vetting and approving psychedelics so they could be available by prescription.
 

50% have tried psychedelics

Almost 80% said that it should be easier for researchers to study psychedelics, and just under one-half said that they backed removing criminal penalties for personal use and possession.

The poll results also show that almost half of respondents had heard about psychedelics recently, with 48% saying they had heard about the drugs’ use in treating mental illness.

Respondents who were most familiar with and positive about psychedelics tended to be White, male, aged 30-50 years, liberal, highly educated, living in a Western state, and have little to no religious or spiritual practice.

Overall, 52% of survey respondents said that they or someone close to them had used a psychedelic, with almost half of that use coming in the past 5 years. Some 40% said that the use had been more than a decade ago.

Almost three-quarters of psychedelic use was reported as recreational, but the second-biggest category was therapeutic use at 39%. About one-third of respondents said that they or someone close to them had microdosed.

Conservative voters had lower levels of awareness and first-degree connection use as well as the least amount of support for regulated therapeutic use, with only 45% saying they would back such a policy, compared with 80% of liberal voters and 66% of moderate voters.

Black individuals were the least likely to be familiar with psychedelics: Just 29% said that they had heard a little or a lot about the drugs, compared with 39% of Latinx individuals and 51% of White individuals. And just one-quarter reported first-degree use, compared with half of Latinx individuals and 56% of White individuals.
 

Who should be eligible?

When asked who should be eligible for treatment with psychedelics, 80% said that they were comfortable with its use for those with terminal illnesses. More than two-thirds expressed comfort with the drugs being used to help veterans and people with treatment-resistant depression and anxiety.

Less than one-half of respondents said that psychedelics should be available to everyone older than 21 years. And voters seemed to be less inclined to say psychedelics should be used to treat people with addiction, with just 45% indicating that they were very or somewhat comfortable with that use.

Mr. Pollan said that reflects perhaps some lack of knowledge or education.

“The story about addiction and psychedelics hasn’t gotten out,” he said. “I kind of get that intuitively the idea of using a drug to treat a drug doesn’t sound right to a lot of people. But in fact, there’s good evidence it works,” Mr. Pollan said.

Respondents said that doctors, nurses, and scientists were the most trusted source of information about psychedelics, whereas the FDA received lower confidence. Law enforcement was least trusted by liberals and most trusted by conservatives.

Mr. Pollan noted the reversal in attitudes, with Americans mostly now looking to the scientific and medical establishment for guidance on psychedelics.

“We went from a counterculture drug to something that is being taken seriously by scientists as a potential therapy,” he said.

The poll’s margin of error was ± 2.5%.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risks of common postpartum mental health (PMH) problems may soon be more predictable, thanks to a new comprehensive index for identifying mothers’ 1-year risk at time of delivery.

Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

courtesy Women&#039;s College Hospital

After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.

Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.

“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”

In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”

A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
 

Split-cohort design

Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.

A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.

Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.

Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
 

Risk drivers

PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).

They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).

As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).

In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).

Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.

courtesy Northwestern Medicine

Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.

She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.

Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.

Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.

It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”

As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”

It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”

Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”

The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.

The risks of common postpartum mental health (PMH) problems may soon be more predictable, thanks to a new comprehensive index for identifying mothers’ 1-year risk at time of delivery.

Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

courtesy Women&#039;s College Hospital

After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.

Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.

“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”

In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”

A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
 

Split-cohort design

Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.

A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.

Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.

Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
 

Risk drivers

PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).

They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).

As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).

In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).

Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.

courtesy Northwestern Medicine

Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.

She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.

Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.

Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.

It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”

As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”

It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”

Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”

The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.

The risks of common postpartum mental health (PMH) problems may soon be more predictable, thanks to a new comprehensive index for identifying mothers’ 1-year risk at time of delivery.

Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

courtesy Women&#039;s College Hospital

After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.

Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.

“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”

In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”

A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
 

Split-cohort design

Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.

A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.

Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.

Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
 

Risk drivers

PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).

They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).

As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).

In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).

Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.

courtesy Northwestern Medicine

Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.

She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.

Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.

Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.

It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”

As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”

It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”

Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”

The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

Physicians’ demonstrations of empathy toward their patients can decrease the sensation of pain. These are the results of a study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that was conducted by a team led by neuroscientist Dan-Mikael Ellingsen, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

The researchers used functional MRI to scan the brains of 20 patients with chronic pain to investigate how a physician’s demeanor may affect patients’ sensitivity to pain, including effects in the central nervous system. During the scans, which were conducted in two sessions, the patients’ legs were exposed to stimuli that ranged from painless to moderately painful. The patients recorded perceived pain intensity using a scale. The physicians also underwent fMRI.

Half of the patients were subjected to the pain stimuli while alone; the other half were subjected to pain while in the presence of a physician. The latter group of patients was divided into two subgroups. Half of the patients had spoken to the accompanying physician before the examination. They discussed the history of the patient’s condition to date, among other things. The other half underwent the brain scans without any prior interaction with a physician.
 

Worse when alone

Dr. Ellingsen and his colleagues found that patients who were alone during the examination reported greater pain than those who were in the presence of a physician, even though they were subjected to stimuli of the same intensity. In instances in which the physician and patient had already spoken before the brain scan, patients additionally felt that the physician was empathetic and understood their pain. Furthermore, the physicians were better able to estimate the pain that their patients experienced.

The patients who had a physician by their side consistently experienced pain that was milder than the pain experienced by those who were alone. For pairs that had spoken beforehand, the patients considered their physician to be better able to understand their pain, and the physicians estimated the perceived pain intensity of their patients more accurately.
 

Evidence of trust

There was greater activity in the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as in the primary and secondary somatosensory areas, in patients in the subgroup that had spoken to a physician. For the physicians, compared with the comparison group, there was an increase in correspondence between activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and activity in the secondary somatosensory areas of patients, which is a brain region that is known to react to pain. The brain activity correlation increased in line with the self-reported mutual trust between the physician and patient.

“These results prove that empathy and support can decrease pain intensity,” the investigators write. The data shed light on the brain processes behind the social modulation of pain during the interaction between the physician and the patient. Concordances in the brain are increased by greater therapeutic alliance.
 

Beyond medication

Winfried Meissner, MD, head of the pain clinic at the department of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at Jena University Hospital, Germany, and former president of the German Pain Society, said in an interview: “I view this as a vital study that impressively demonstrates that effective, intensive pain therapy is not just a case of administering the correct analgesic.”

“Instead, a focus should be placed on what common sense tells us, which is just how crucial an empathetic attitude from physicians and good communication with patients are when it comes to the success of any therapy,” Dr. Meissner added. Unfortunately, such an attitude and such communication often are not provided in clinical practice because of limitations on time.

“Now, with objectively collected data from patients and physicians, [Dr.] Ellingsen’s team has been able to demonstrate that human interaction has a decisive impact on the treatment of patients experiencing pain,” said Dr. Meissner. “The study should encourage practitioners to treat communication just as seriously as the pharmacology of analgesics.”
 

Perception and attitude

“The study shows remarkably well that empathetic conversation between the physician and patient represents a valuable therapeutic method and should be recognized as such,” emphasized Dr. Meissner. Of course, conversation cannot replace pharmacologic treatment, but it can supplement and reinforce it. Furthermore, a physician’s empathy presumably has an effect that is at least as great as a suitable analgesic.

“Pain is more than just sensory perception,” explained Dr. Meissner. “We all know that it has a strong affective component, and perception is greatly determined by context.” This can be seen, for example, in athletes, who often attribute less importance to their pain and can successfully perform competitively despite a painful injury.
 

Positive expectations

Dr. Meissner advised all physicians to treat patients with pain empathetically. He encourages them to ask patients about their pain, accompanying symptoms, possible fears, and other mental stress and to take these factors seriously.

Moreover, the findings accentuate the effect of prescribed analgesics. “Numerous studies have meanwhile shown that the more positive a patient’s expectations, the better the effect of a medication,” said Dr. Meissner. “We physicians must exploit this effect, too.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ demonstrations of empathy toward their patients can decrease the sensation of pain. These are the results of a study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that was conducted by a team led by neuroscientist Dan-Mikael Ellingsen, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

The researchers used functional MRI to scan the brains of 20 patients with chronic pain to investigate how a physician’s demeanor may affect patients’ sensitivity to pain, including effects in the central nervous system. During the scans, which were conducted in two sessions, the patients’ legs were exposed to stimuli that ranged from painless to moderately painful. The patients recorded perceived pain intensity using a scale. The physicians also underwent fMRI.

Half of the patients were subjected to the pain stimuli while alone; the other half were subjected to pain while in the presence of a physician. The latter group of patients was divided into two subgroups. Half of the patients had spoken to the accompanying physician before the examination. They discussed the history of the patient’s condition to date, among other things. The other half underwent the brain scans without any prior interaction with a physician.
 

Worse when alone

Dr. Ellingsen and his colleagues found that patients who were alone during the examination reported greater pain than those who were in the presence of a physician, even though they were subjected to stimuli of the same intensity. In instances in which the physician and patient had already spoken before the brain scan, patients additionally felt that the physician was empathetic and understood their pain. Furthermore, the physicians were better able to estimate the pain that their patients experienced.

The patients who had a physician by their side consistently experienced pain that was milder than the pain experienced by those who were alone. For pairs that had spoken beforehand, the patients considered their physician to be better able to understand their pain, and the physicians estimated the perceived pain intensity of their patients more accurately.
 

Evidence of trust

There was greater activity in the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as in the primary and secondary somatosensory areas, in patients in the subgroup that had spoken to a physician. For the physicians, compared with the comparison group, there was an increase in correspondence between activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and activity in the secondary somatosensory areas of patients, which is a brain region that is known to react to pain. The brain activity correlation increased in line with the self-reported mutual trust between the physician and patient.

“These results prove that empathy and support can decrease pain intensity,” the investigators write. The data shed light on the brain processes behind the social modulation of pain during the interaction between the physician and the patient. Concordances in the brain are increased by greater therapeutic alliance.
 

Beyond medication

Winfried Meissner, MD, head of the pain clinic at the department of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at Jena University Hospital, Germany, and former president of the German Pain Society, said in an interview: “I view this as a vital study that impressively demonstrates that effective, intensive pain therapy is not just a case of administering the correct analgesic.”

“Instead, a focus should be placed on what common sense tells us, which is just how crucial an empathetic attitude from physicians and good communication with patients are when it comes to the success of any therapy,” Dr. Meissner added. Unfortunately, such an attitude and such communication often are not provided in clinical practice because of limitations on time.

“Now, with objectively collected data from patients and physicians, [Dr.] Ellingsen’s team has been able to demonstrate that human interaction has a decisive impact on the treatment of patients experiencing pain,” said Dr. Meissner. “The study should encourage practitioners to treat communication just as seriously as the pharmacology of analgesics.”
 

Perception and attitude

“The study shows remarkably well that empathetic conversation between the physician and patient represents a valuable therapeutic method and should be recognized as such,” emphasized Dr. Meissner. Of course, conversation cannot replace pharmacologic treatment, but it can supplement and reinforce it. Furthermore, a physician’s empathy presumably has an effect that is at least as great as a suitable analgesic.

“Pain is more than just sensory perception,” explained Dr. Meissner. “We all know that it has a strong affective component, and perception is greatly determined by context.” This can be seen, for example, in athletes, who often attribute less importance to their pain and can successfully perform competitively despite a painful injury.
 

Positive expectations

Dr. Meissner advised all physicians to treat patients with pain empathetically. He encourages them to ask patients about their pain, accompanying symptoms, possible fears, and other mental stress and to take these factors seriously.

Moreover, the findings accentuate the effect of prescribed analgesics. “Numerous studies have meanwhile shown that the more positive a patient’s expectations, the better the effect of a medication,” said Dr. Meissner. “We physicians must exploit this effect, too.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ demonstrations of empathy toward their patients can decrease the sensation of pain. These are the results of a study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that was conducted by a team led by neuroscientist Dan-Mikael Ellingsen, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

The researchers used functional MRI to scan the brains of 20 patients with chronic pain to investigate how a physician’s demeanor may affect patients’ sensitivity to pain, including effects in the central nervous system. During the scans, which were conducted in two sessions, the patients’ legs were exposed to stimuli that ranged from painless to moderately painful. The patients recorded perceived pain intensity using a scale. The physicians also underwent fMRI.

Half of the patients were subjected to the pain stimuli while alone; the other half were subjected to pain while in the presence of a physician. The latter group of patients was divided into two subgroups. Half of the patients had spoken to the accompanying physician before the examination. They discussed the history of the patient’s condition to date, among other things. The other half underwent the brain scans without any prior interaction with a physician.
 

Worse when alone

Dr. Ellingsen and his colleagues found that patients who were alone during the examination reported greater pain than those who were in the presence of a physician, even though they were subjected to stimuli of the same intensity. In instances in which the physician and patient had already spoken before the brain scan, patients additionally felt that the physician was empathetic and understood their pain. Furthermore, the physicians were better able to estimate the pain that their patients experienced.

The patients who had a physician by their side consistently experienced pain that was milder than the pain experienced by those who were alone. For pairs that had spoken beforehand, the patients considered their physician to be better able to understand their pain, and the physicians estimated the perceived pain intensity of their patients more accurately.
 

Evidence of trust

There was greater activity in the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as in the primary and secondary somatosensory areas, in patients in the subgroup that had spoken to a physician. For the physicians, compared with the comparison group, there was an increase in correspondence between activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and activity in the secondary somatosensory areas of patients, which is a brain region that is known to react to pain. The brain activity correlation increased in line with the self-reported mutual trust between the physician and patient.

“These results prove that empathy and support can decrease pain intensity,” the investigators write. The data shed light on the brain processes behind the social modulation of pain during the interaction between the physician and the patient. Concordances in the brain are increased by greater therapeutic alliance.
 

Beyond medication

Winfried Meissner, MD, head of the pain clinic at the department of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at Jena University Hospital, Germany, and former president of the German Pain Society, said in an interview: “I view this as a vital study that impressively demonstrates that effective, intensive pain therapy is not just a case of administering the correct analgesic.”

“Instead, a focus should be placed on what common sense tells us, which is just how crucial an empathetic attitude from physicians and good communication with patients are when it comes to the success of any therapy,” Dr. Meissner added. Unfortunately, such an attitude and such communication often are not provided in clinical practice because of limitations on time.

“Now, with objectively collected data from patients and physicians, [Dr.] Ellingsen’s team has been able to demonstrate that human interaction has a decisive impact on the treatment of patients experiencing pain,” said Dr. Meissner. “The study should encourage practitioners to treat communication just as seriously as the pharmacology of analgesics.”
 

Perception and attitude

“The study shows remarkably well that empathetic conversation between the physician and patient represents a valuable therapeutic method and should be recognized as such,” emphasized Dr. Meissner. Of course, conversation cannot replace pharmacologic treatment, but it can supplement and reinforce it. Furthermore, a physician’s empathy presumably has an effect that is at least as great as a suitable analgesic.

“Pain is more than just sensory perception,” explained Dr. Meissner. “We all know that it has a strong affective component, and perception is greatly determined by context.” This can be seen, for example, in athletes, who often attribute less importance to their pain and can successfully perform competitively despite a painful injury.
 

Positive expectations

Dr. Meissner advised all physicians to treat patients with pain empathetically. He encourages them to ask patients about their pain, accompanying symptoms, possible fears, and other mental stress and to take these factors seriously.

Moreover, the findings accentuate the effect of prescribed analgesics. “Numerous studies have meanwhile shown that the more positive a patient’s expectations, the better the effect of a medication,” said Dr. Meissner. “We physicians must exploit this effect, too.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.