Clinical Psychiatry News

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

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

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

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

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

Mothers with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are more likely to have adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes than are those without the disorder, according to new research.

In an observational study that followed almost 3 million pregnancies in two countries over 20 years, children of women with OCD were at increased risk for low Apgar score at 5 minutes in Sweden (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.62) and British Columbia, Canada (aRR, 2.30). The risks for adverse outcomes were greater among women with OCD who were taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), compared with those who were not.

“To me, the most relevant things to consider are the clinical implications of these findings,” lead author Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, principal researcher at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told this news organization. She noted that some of the outcomes, such as preeclampsia, can be prevented or improved with collaboration among clinicians and increased monitoring.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased risk

OCD affects roughly 1%-3% of the population. Although it is sometimes seen as a mild psychiatric disorder, OCD entails a range of adverse outcomes, and this research suggests that the adverse outcomes extend to maternal health, Dr. Fernández de la Cruz stressed.

The researchers drew data from population registers in Sweden and British Columbia for all singleton births over a roughly 20-year period ending in 2019, with subcohorts identified by formal OCD diagnosis and exposure to SRIs within 30 days before conception. Statistical analyses were performed on a range of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes.

In an analysis adjusted for common risk factors such as age, BMI, and smoking, Swedish women with OCD had elevated risk for several adverse outcomes, including a 40% increased risk for gestational diabetes. In British Columbia, fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes for women were associated with an OCD diagnosis.

The study, which also tracked neonatal outcomes, found that infants of mothers with OCD in both Sweden and British Columbia had higher rates of preterm birth (Sweden: aRR, 1.33; BC: aRR, 1.58), low birth weight (Sweden: aRR, 1.28; BC: aRR, 1.40), and neonatal respiratory distress (Sweden: aRR, 1.63; BC: aRR, 1.47).

These results, the authors say, show a need for more monitoring of maternal OCD and collaboration among obstetricians and psychologists. “All this evidence shows that OCD should be detected and treated so that adverse outcomes can be prevented or properly handled,” said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz.
 

SRI medication

SRIs are frequently used to treat OCD. The subclass of selective SRIs, which includes common antidepressants, has been associated with worsened pregnancy outcomes, but it remains unclear whether all SRIs increase pregnancy risks.

To understand the role of SRIs better in this study, the authors compared the outcomes for women taking SRIs and those who were not prescribed the medication, which is a novel aspect of the study, according to Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Women who took the medication were at greater risk for several adverse outcomes, although all women with an OCD diagnosis were at higher risk than were those without the condition. The investigators hope to continue studying the role of OCD medication during pregnancy in more detail.

The rates of SRI use varied between the two cohorts: 81% of Canadian patients took the medication, compared with 37% of Swedish patients. The disparate rates, along with other clinical practices, may have contributed to differences in outcomes for the two cohorts.

It is also important to bear in mind, however, that patients taking the medication tend to have more severe cases of OCD, said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Thus, the increased risk may or may not result from the medication itself. “It is important to understand that there may be other variables besides medication explaining why one group had higher risks than the other,” she said.
 

‘Multifactorial’ reasons

In addition to medication, other factors may play a role in the association between OCD and adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, including genetics, lifestyle, and psychiatric comorbidities. The authors addressed some of these potential confounders in additional analyses, including sister and cousin comparisons in the Swedish arm of the study, which found weakened associations, compared with population wide statistics.

Commenting on the research, Benicio Frey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., said that acknowledging these confounding factors is a strength of the study. Psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety are common among patients with OCD. Of the patients with OCD in this study, 72% and 51% had other psychiatric diagnoses in Sweden and British Columbia, respectively. About 7% of the women without OCD had one of these conditions.

However, Dr. Frey said that the effect of adjusting for psychiatric comorbidities on some outcomes should be stated more clearly. “I see a clear difference,” he said. The relative risk for gestational diabetes among the Swedish cohort, for example, drops from a 40% increased risk to 19% increased when adjusted for mood and anxiety disorders. 

Regardless of the cause, the results are important and demonstrate a need to provide additional care for pregnant women with psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Frey. “The important take-home message for policymakers and health care providers is to make sure that they assess for OCD and then monitor those individuals very closely. What I would suggest as a caution is that the reasons behind it are multifactorial.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Fernández de la Cruz and Dr. Frey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mothers with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are more likely to have adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes than are those without the disorder, according to new research.

In an observational study that followed almost 3 million pregnancies in two countries over 20 years, children of women with OCD were at increased risk for low Apgar score at 5 minutes in Sweden (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.62) and British Columbia, Canada (aRR, 2.30). The risks for adverse outcomes were greater among women with OCD who were taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), compared with those who were not.

“To me, the most relevant things to consider are the clinical implications of these findings,” lead author Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, principal researcher at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told this news organization. She noted that some of the outcomes, such as preeclampsia, can be prevented or improved with collaboration among clinicians and increased monitoring.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased risk

OCD affects roughly 1%-3% of the population. Although it is sometimes seen as a mild psychiatric disorder, OCD entails a range of adverse outcomes, and this research suggests that the adverse outcomes extend to maternal health, Dr. Fernández de la Cruz stressed.

The researchers drew data from population registers in Sweden and British Columbia for all singleton births over a roughly 20-year period ending in 2019, with subcohorts identified by formal OCD diagnosis and exposure to SRIs within 30 days before conception. Statistical analyses were performed on a range of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes.

In an analysis adjusted for common risk factors such as age, BMI, and smoking, Swedish women with OCD had elevated risk for several adverse outcomes, including a 40% increased risk for gestational diabetes. In British Columbia, fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes for women were associated with an OCD diagnosis.

The study, which also tracked neonatal outcomes, found that infants of mothers with OCD in both Sweden and British Columbia had higher rates of preterm birth (Sweden: aRR, 1.33; BC: aRR, 1.58), low birth weight (Sweden: aRR, 1.28; BC: aRR, 1.40), and neonatal respiratory distress (Sweden: aRR, 1.63; BC: aRR, 1.47).

These results, the authors say, show a need for more monitoring of maternal OCD and collaboration among obstetricians and psychologists. “All this evidence shows that OCD should be detected and treated so that adverse outcomes can be prevented or properly handled,” said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz.
 

SRI medication

SRIs are frequently used to treat OCD. The subclass of selective SRIs, which includes common antidepressants, has been associated with worsened pregnancy outcomes, but it remains unclear whether all SRIs increase pregnancy risks.

To understand the role of SRIs better in this study, the authors compared the outcomes for women taking SRIs and those who were not prescribed the medication, which is a novel aspect of the study, according to Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Women who took the medication were at greater risk for several adverse outcomes, although all women with an OCD diagnosis were at higher risk than were those without the condition. The investigators hope to continue studying the role of OCD medication during pregnancy in more detail.

The rates of SRI use varied between the two cohorts: 81% of Canadian patients took the medication, compared with 37% of Swedish patients. The disparate rates, along with other clinical practices, may have contributed to differences in outcomes for the two cohorts.

It is also important to bear in mind, however, that patients taking the medication tend to have more severe cases of OCD, said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Thus, the increased risk may or may not result from the medication itself. “It is important to understand that there may be other variables besides medication explaining why one group had higher risks than the other,” she said.
 

‘Multifactorial’ reasons

In addition to medication, other factors may play a role in the association between OCD and adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, including genetics, lifestyle, and psychiatric comorbidities. The authors addressed some of these potential confounders in additional analyses, including sister and cousin comparisons in the Swedish arm of the study, which found weakened associations, compared with population wide statistics.

Commenting on the research, Benicio Frey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., said that acknowledging these confounding factors is a strength of the study. Psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety are common among patients with OCD. Of the patients with OCD in this study, 72% and 51% had other psychiatric diagnoses in Sweden and British Columbia, respectively. About 7% of the women without OCD had one of these conditions.

However, Dr. Frey said that the effect of adjusting for psychiatric comorbidities on some outcomes should be stated more clearly. “I see a clear difference,” he said. The relative risk for gestational diabetes among the Swedish cohort, for example, drops from a 40% increased risk to 19% increased when adjusted for mood and anxiety disorders. 

Regardless of the cause, the results are important and demonstrate a need to provide additional care for pregnant women with psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Frey. “The important take-home message for policymakers and health care providers is to make sure that they assess for OCD and then monitor those individuals very closely. What I would suggest as a caution is that the reasons behind it are multifactorial.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Fernández de la Cruz and Dr. Frey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mothers with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are more likely to have adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes than are those without the disorder, according to new research.

In an observational study that followed almost 3 million pregnancies in two countries over 20 years, children of women with OCD were at increased risk for low Apgar score at 5 minutes in Sweden (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.62) and British Columbia, Canada (aRR, 2.30). The risks for adverse outcomes were greater among women with OCD who were taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), compared with those who were not.

“To me, the most relevant things to consider are the clinical implications of these findings,” lead author Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, principal researcher at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told this news organization. She noted that some of the outcomes, such as preeclampsia, can be prevented or improved with collaboration among clinicians and increased monitoring.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased risk

OCD affects roughly 1%-3% of the population. Although it is sometimes seen as a mild psychiatric disorder, OCD entails a range of adverse outcomes, and this research suggests that the adverse outcomes extend to maternal health, Dr. Fernández de la Cruz stressed.

The researchers drew data from population registers in Sweden and British Columbia for all singleton births over a roughly 20-year period ending in 2019, with subcohorts identified by formal OCD diagnosis and exposure to SRIs within 30 days before conception. Statistical analyses were performed on a range of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes.

In an analysis adjusted for common risk factors such as age, BMI, and smoking, Swedish women with OCD had elevated risk for several adverse outcomes, including a 40% increased risk for gestational diabetes. In British Columbia, fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes for women were associated with an OCD diagnosis.

The study, which also tracked neonatal outcomes, found that infants of mothers with OCD in both Sweden and British Columbia had higher rates of preterm birth (Sweden: aRR, 1.33; BC: aRR, 1.58), low birth weight (Sweden: aRR, 1.28; BC: aRR, 1.40), and neonatal respiratory distress (Sweden: aRR, 1.63; BC: aRR, 1.47).

These results, the authors say, show a need for more monitoring of maternal OCD and collaboration among obstetricians and psychologists. “All this evidence shows that OCD should be detected and treated so that adverse outcomes can be prevented or properly handled,” said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz.
 

SRI medication

SRIs are frequently used to treat OCD. The subclass of selective SRIs, which includes common antidepressants, has been associated with worsened pregnancy outcomes, but it remains unclear whether all SRIs increase pregnancy risks.

To understand the role of SRIs better in this study, the authors compared the outcomes for women taking SRIs and those who were not prescribed the medication, which is a novel aspect of the study, according to Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Women who took the medication were at greater risk for several adverse outcomes, although all women with an OCD diagnosis were at higher risk than were those without the condition. The investigators hope to continue studying the role of OCD medication during pregnancy in more detail.

The rates of SRI use varied between the two cohorts: 81% of Canadian patients took the medication, compared with 37% of Swedish patients. The disparate rates, along with other clinical practices, may have contributed to differences in outcomes for the two cohorts.

It is also important to bear in mind, however, that patients taking the medication tend to have more severe cases of OCD, said Dr. Fernández de la Cruz. Thus, the increased risk may or may not result from the medication itself. “It is important to understand that there may be other variables besides medication explaining why one group had higher risks than the other,” she said.
 

‘Multifactorial’ reasons

In addition to medication, other factors may play a role in the association between OCD and adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, including genetics, lifestyle, and psychiatric comorbidities. The authors addressed some of these potential confounders in additional analyses, including sister and cousin comparisons in the Swedish arm of the study, which found weakened associations, compared with population wide statistics.

Commenting on the research, Benicio Frey, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., said that acknowledging these confounding factors is a strength of the study. Psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety are common among patients with OCD. Of the patients with OCD in this study, 72% and 51% had other psychiatric diagnoses in Sweden and British Columbia, respectively. About 7% of the women without OCD had one of these conditions.

However, Dr. Frey said that the effect of adjusting for psychiatric comorbidities on some outcomes should be stated more clearly. “I see a clear difference,” he said. The relative risk for gestational diabetes among the Swedish cohort, for example, drops from a 40% increased risk to 19% increased when adjusted for mood and anxiety disorders. 

Regardless of the cause, the results are important and demonstrate a need to provide additional care for pregnant women with psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Frey. “The important take-home message for policymakers and health care providers is to make sure that they assess for OCD and then monitor those individuals very closely. What I would suggest as a caution is that the reasons behind it are multifactorial.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Fernández de la Cruz and Dr. Frey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new European consensus statement offers expert guidance on which biomarkers to use for patients presenting with cognitive complaints.

Led by Giovanni B. Frisoni, MD, laboratory of neuroimaging of aging, University of Geneva, and director of the memory clinic at Geneva University Hospital, the multidisciplinary task force set out to define a patient-centered diagnostic workflow for the rational and cost-effective use of biomarkers in memory clinics.

The new algorithm is part of a consensus statement presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2023. An interim update was published in June in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Which biomarker?

Many biomarkers can aid diagnosis, said Dr. Frisoni; the challenge is choosing which biomarker to use for an individual patient.

A literature-based search, he said, yields a number of recommendations, but the vast majority of these are either disease based or biomarker based. The task force notes that “in vivo biomarkers enable early etiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. While they have good analytical validity, their clinical validity and utility are uncertain.”

“When you have a patient in front of you, you don’ t know whether they have Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Frisoni said.

“You have a differential diagnosis to make, and you have a number of biomarkers – a number of weapons in your armamentarium – you have to choose. You can’t use all of them – we would like to, but we cannot.”

He added that trying to determine from the literature which biomarker is most appropriate given individual clinical conditions and all of the potential combinations is impossible.

“You will not find evidence of the comparative diagnostic value and the added diagnostic value” of one test vs, another, he noted.

“Is CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] better than amyloid PET in a particular clinical situation? What do I gain in terms of positive and negative predictive value in all the possible clinical conditions that I encounter in my clinical practice?”

Dr. Frisoni said the reality is that clinicians in memory clinics end up using biomarkers that are “based on clinical opportunities.”

For instance, “if you have a proficient nuclear medic, you use PET a lot.” In contrast, “if you have a proficient laboratory medic,” CSF markers will be favored – a situation that he said is “not ideal” and has resulted in large discrepancies in diagnostic approaches across Europe.
 

Harmonizing clinical practice

In a bid to harmonize clinical practice, 22 European experts from 11 European scientific societies and the executive director of Alzheimer Europe set out to develop a multidisciplinary consensus algorithm for the biomarker-based diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in general, rather than specific neurocognitive disorders.

They used the Delphi method, in which a systematic literature review of the literature was followed by the drafting of a series of clinical statements by an executive board. These were then presented to the expert panel. If a majority consensus was reached on a given statement, it was considered closed. Questions for which there was no consensus were revised and presented to the panel again. The process was repeated until a consensus was reached.

A total of 56 statements underwent six rounds of discussion. A final online meeting led to the development of a diagnostic algorithm for patients who attend memory clinics for cognitive complaints.

The algorithm features three potential assessment waves. Wave 1 defines 11 clinical profiles that are based on the results of clinical and neuropsychological assessments, blood exams, brain imaging, and, in specific cases, electroencephalography. Wave 2 defines first-line biomarkers based on Wave 1 clinical profiles, and Wave 3 defines the second-line biomarker based on Wave 2 biomarker results.

When a patient’s clinical profile suggests Alzheimer’s disease and, in undefined cases, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are used first line. When CSF is inconclusive, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is used second line.

When the clinical profile suggests frontotemporal lobar degeneration or motor tauopathies, FDG-PET is first line and CSF biomarkers second line in atypical metabolic patter cases. When the clinical profile suggests Lewy body disease, dopamine transporter SPECT is first line and cardia I23I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy is second line.

Dr. Frisoni noted that the panel strongly recommends performing biomarker tests for patients younger than 70. For those aged 70-85 years, biomarker testing is only recommended for patients with specific clinical features. For patients older than 85, biomarker testing is recommended only in “exceptional circumstances.”

Dr. Frisoni noted that the consensus document has a number of limitations.

“First of all, we could not capture all the theoretical possible combinations” of potential diagnosis and relevant biomarker tests. “There are so many that it’s virtually impossible.”

He also noted that the agreement among the panel for the use of some markers was “relatively low” at “barely 50%,” while for others, the agreement was approximately 70%.

The consensus document also does not explicitly address patients with “mixed pathologies,” which are common. In addition, it does not include emerging biomarkers, such as neurofilament light polypeptide levels, an indicator of axonal compromise.

“Last, but not least,” Dr. Frisoni said, the consensus document requires validation.

“This is a paper and pencil exercise. We, as self-appointed experts, can recommend ... whatever we want, but we must check whether what we write is applicable, feasible.”

In other words, it must be determined whether the “real patient journey” fits with the “ideal patient journey” set out in the consensus document.

This kind of validation, Dr. Frisoni said, is “usually not done for this type of exercise,” but “we want to do it in this case.”
 

Pros and cons

Bogdan Draganski, MD, consultant in neurology at the department of clinical neurosciences and director of the neuroimaging research laboratory, University Hospital of Lausanne (Switzerland), who cochaired the session, told this news organization that he was “swaying between two extremes” when considering the usefulness of the consensus document.

On one hand, the “reductionist approach” of breaking down a “complex issue into an algorithm” via the Delphi method risks introducing subjective bias.

He said machine learning and artificial intelligence could answer some of the questions posed by clinicians and, by extension, the statements included in the Delphi process by assessing the available data in a more objective manner.

On the other hand, Dr. Draganski said that reducing the options available to clinicians when making a differential diagnosis into the current algorithm is, pragmatically speaking, a “good approach.”

From this standpoint, the danger of using machine learning to answer clinical questions is that it “doesn’t take the responsibility” for the final decision, which means “we’re closing the loop of subjective decision-making for an individual doctor.”

He also applauded the idea of trying to provide more uniform patient assessment across Europe, although he believes “we have a long way to go” before it can deliver on the promise of personalized medicine.

Like Dr. Frisoni, Dr. Draganski noted the fact that patients with potential neurocognitive disorders often have multiple pathologies, which can include cardiovascular problems, depression, and cancer and that that could affect the choice of diagnostic biomarkers.

The second issue, he said, concerns implementation of the consensus document, which is a political decision that centers around “how politicians will define ‘uniformity’ and equal access to technological or nontechnological platforms.”

Achieving uniformity will require a pan-regional collaboration, he noted.

The task force was supported by unrestricted grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, and OM Pharma Suisse SA. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new European consensus statement offers expert guidance on which biomarkers to use for patients presenting with cognitive complaints.

Led by Giovanni B. Frisoni, MD, laboratory of neuroimaging of aging, University of Geneva, and director of the memory clinic at Geneva University Hospital, the multidisciplinary task force set out to define a patient-centered diagnostic workflow for the rational and cost-effective use of biomarkers in memory clinics.

The new algorithm is part of a consensus statement presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2023. An interim update was published in June in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Which biomarker?

Many biomarkers can aid diagnosis, said Dr. Frisoni; the challenge is choosing which biomarker to use for an individual patient.

A literature-based search, he said, yields a number of recommendations, but the vast majority of these are either disease based or biomarker based. The task force notes that “in vivo biomarkers enable early etiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. While they have good analytical validity, their clinical validity and utility are uncertain.”

“When you have a patient in front of you, you don’ t know whether they have Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Frisoni said.

“You have a differential diagnosis to make, and you have a number of biomarkers – a number of weapons in your armamentarium – you have to choose. You can’t use all of them – we would like to, but we cannot.”

He added that trying to determine from the literature which biomarker is most appropriate given individual clinical conditions and all of the potential combinations is impossible.

“You will not find evidence of the comparative diagnostic value and the added diagnostic value” of one test vs, another, he noted.

“Is CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] better than amyloid PET in a particular clinical situation? What do I gain in terms of positive and negative predictive value in all the possible clinical conditions that I encounter in my clinical practice?”

Dr. Frisoni said the reality is that clinicians in memory clinics end up using biomarkers that are “based on clinical opportunities.”

For instance, “if you have a proficient nuclear medic, you use PET a lot.” In contrast, “if you have a proficient laboratory medic,” CSF markers will be favored – a situation that he said is “not ideal” and has resulted in large discrepancies in diagnostic approaches across Europe.
 

Harmonizing clinical practice

In a bid to harmonize clinical practice, 22 European experts from 11 European scientific societies and the executive director of Alzheimer Europe set out to develop a multidisciplinary consensus algorithm for the biomarker-based diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in general, rather than specific neurocognitive disorders.

They used the Delphi method, in which a systematic literature review of the literature was followed by the drafting of a series of clinical statements by an executive board. These were then presented to the expert panel. If a majority consensus was reached on a given statement, it was considered closed. Questions for which there was no consensus were revised and presented to the panel again. The process was repeated until a consensus was reached.

A total of 56 statements underwent six rounds of discussion. A final online meeting led to the development of a diagnostic algorithm for patients who attend memory clinics for cognitive complaints.

The algorithm features three potential assessment waves. Wave 1 defines 11 clinical profiles that are based on the results of clinical and neuropsychological assessments, blood exams, brain imaging, and, in specific cases, electroencephalography. Wave 2 defines first-line biomarkers based on Wave 1 clinical profiles, and Wave 3 defines the second-line biomarker based on Wave 2 biomarker results.

When a patient’s clinical profile suggests Alzheimer’s disease and, in undefined cases, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are used first line. When CSF is inconclusive, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is used second line.

When the clinical profile suggests frontotemporal lobar degeneration or motor tauopathies, FDG-PET is first line and CSF biomarkers second line in atypical metabolic patter cases. When the clinical profile suggests Lewy body disease, dopamine transporter SPECT is first line and cardia I23I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy is second line.

Dr. Frisoni noted that the panel strongly recommends performing biomarker tests for patients younger than 70. For those aged 70-85 years, biomarker testing is only recommended for patients with specific clinical features. For patients older than 85, biomarker testing is recommended only in “exceptional circumstances.”

Dr. Frisoni noted that the consensus document has a number of limitations.

“First of all, we could not capture all the theoretical possible combinations” of potential diagnosis and relevant biomarker tests. “There are so many that it’s virtually impossible.”

He also noted that the agreement among the panel for the use of some markers was “relatively low” at “barely 50%,” while for others, the agreement was approximately 70%.

The consensus document also does not explicitly address patients with “mixed pathologies,” which are common. In addition, it does not include emerging biomarkers, such as neurofilament light polypeptide levels, an indicator of axonal compromise.

“Last, but not least,” Dr. Frisoni said, the consensus document requires validation.

“This is a paper and pencil exercise. We, as self-appointed experts, can recommend ... whatever we want, but we must check whether what we write is applicable, feasible.”

In other words, it must be determined whether the “real patient journey” fits with the “ideal patient journey” set out in the consensus document.

This kind of validation, Dr. Frisoni said, is “usually not done for this type of exercise,” but “we want to do it in this case.”
 

Pros and cons

Bogdan Draganski, MD, consultant in neurology at the department of clinical neurosciences and director of the neuroimaging research laboratory, University Hospital of Lausanne (Switzerland), who cochaired the session, told this news organization that he was “swaying between two extremes” when considering the usefulness of the consensus document.

On one hand, the “reductionist approach” of breaking down a “complex issue into an algorithm” via the Delphi method risks introducing subjective bias.

He said machine learning and artificial intelligence could answer some of the questions posed by clinicians and, by extension, the statements included in the Delphi process by assessing the available data in a more objective manner.

On the other hand, Dr. Draganski said that reducing the options available to clinicians when making a differential diagnosis into the current algorithm is, pragmatically speaking, a “good approach.”

From this standpoint, the danger of using machine learning to answer clinical questions is that it “doesn’t take the responsibility” for the final decision, which means “we’re closing the loop of subjective decision-making for an individual doctor.”

He also applauded the idea of trying to provide more uniform patient assessment across Europe, although he believes “we have a long way to go” before it can deliver on the promise of personalized medicine.

Like Dr. Frisoni, Dr. Draganski noted the fact that patients with potential neurocognitive disorders often have multiple pathologies, which can include cardiovascular problems, depression, and cancer and that that could affect the choice of diagnostic biomarkers.

The second issue, he said, concerns implementation of the consensus document, which is a political decision that centers around “how politicians will define ‘uniformity’ and equal access to technological or nontechnological platforms.”

Achieving uniformity will require a pan-regional collaboration, he noted.

The task force was supported by unrestricted grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, and OM Pharma Suisse SA. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new European consensus statement offers expert guidance on which biomarkers to use for patients presenting with cognitive complaints.

Led by Giovanni B. Frisoni, MD, laboratory of neuroimaging of aging, University of Geneva, and director of the memory clinic at Geneva University Hospital, the multidisciplinary task force set out to define a patient-centered diagnostic workflow for the rational and cost-effective use of biomarkers in memory clinics.

The new algorithm is part of a consensus statement presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2023. An interim update was published in June in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Which biomarker?

Many biomarkers can aid diagnosis, said Dr. Frisoni; the challenge is choosing which biomarker to use for an individual patient.

A literature-based search, he said, yields a number of recommendations, but the vast majority of these are either disease based or biomarker based. The task force notes that “in vivo biomarkers enable early etiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. While they have good analytical validity, their clinical validity and utility are uncertain.”

“When you have a patient in front of you, you don’ t know whether they have Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Frisoni said.

“You have a differential diagnosis to make, and you have a number of biomarkers – a number of weapons in your armamentarium – you have to choose. You can’t use all of them – we would like to, but we cannot.”

He added that trying to determine from the literature which biomarker is most appropriate given individual clinical conditions and all of the potential combinations is impossible.

“You will not find evidence of the comparative diagnostic value and the added diagnostic value” of one test vs, another, he noted.

“Is CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] better than amyloid PET in a particular clinical situation? What do I gain in terms of positive and negative predictive value in all the possible clinical conditions that I encounter in my clinical practice?”

Dr. Frisoni said the reality is that clinicians in memory clinics end up using biomarkers that are “based on clinical opportunities.”

For instance, “if you have a proficient nuclear medic, you use PET a lot.” In contrast, “if you have a proficient laboratory medic,” CSF markers will be favored – a situation that he said is “not ideal” and has resulted in large discrepancies in diagnostic approaches across Europe.
 

Harmonizing clinical practice

In a bid to harmonize clinical practice, 22 European experts from 11 European scientific societies and the executive director of Alzheimer Europe set out to develop a multidisciplinary consensus algorithm for the biomarker-based diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in general, rather than specific neurocognitive disorders.

They used the Delphi method, in which a systematic literature review of the literature was followed by the drafting of a series of clinical statements by an executive board. These were then presented to the expert panel. If a majority consensus was reached on a given statement, it was considered closed. Questions for which there was no consensus were revised and presented to the panel again. The process was repeated until a consensus was reached.

A total of 56 statements underwent six rounds of discussion. A final online meeting led to the development of a diagnostic algorithm for patients who attend memory clinics for cognitive complaints.

The algorithm features three potential assessment waves. Wave 1 defines 11 clinical profiles that are based on the results of clinical and neuropsychological assessments, blood exams, brain imaging, and, in specific cases, electroencephalography. Wave 2 defines first-line biomarkers based on Wave 1 clinical profiles, and Wave 3 defines the second-line biomarker based on Wave 2 biomarker results.

When a patient’s clinical profile suggests Alzheimer’s disease and, in undefined cases, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are used first line. When CSF is inconclusive, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is used second line.

When the clinical profile suggests frontotemporal lobar degeneration or motor tauopathies, FDG-PET is first line and CSF biomarkers second line in atypical metabolic patter cases. When the clinical profile suggests Lewy body disease, dopamine transporter SPECT is first line and cardia I23I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy is second line.

Dr. Frisoni noted that the panel strongly recommends performing biomarker tests for patients younger than 70. For those aged 70-85 years, biomarker testing is only recommended for patients with specific clinical features. For patients older than 85, biomarker testing is recommended only in “exceptional circumstances.”

Dr. Frisoni noted that the consensus document has a number of limitations.

“First of all, we could not capture all the theoretical possible combinations” of potential diagnosis and relevant biomarker tests. “There are so many that it’s virtually impossible.”

He also noted that the agreement among the panel for the use of some markers was “relatively low” at “barely 50%,” while for others, the agreement was approximately 70%.

The consensus document also does not explicitly address patients with “mixed pathologies,” which are common. In addition, it does not include emerging biomarkers, such as neurofilament light polypeptide levels, an indicator of axonal compromise.

“Last, but not least,” Dr. Frisoni said, the consensus document requires validation.

“This is a paper and pencil exercise. We, as self-appointed experts, can recommend ... whatever we want, but we must check whether what we write is applicable, feasible.”

In other words, it must be determined whether the “real patient journey” fits with the “ideal patient journey” set out in the consensus document.

This kind of validation, Dr. Frisoni said, is “usually not done for this type of exercise,” but “we want to do it in this case.”
 

Pros and cons

Bogdan Draganski, MD, consultant in neurology at the department of clinical neurosciences and director of the neuroimaging research laboratory, University Hospital of Lausanne (Switzerland), who cochaired the session, told this news organization that he was “swaying between two extremes” when considering the usefulness of the consensus document.

On one hand, the “reductionist approach” of breaking down a “complex issue into an algorithm” via the Delphi method risks introducing subjective bias.

He said machine learning and artificial intelligence could answer some of the questions posed by clinicians and, by extension, the statements included in the Delphi process by assessing the available data in a more objective manner.

On the other hand, Dr. Draganski said that reducing the options available to clinicians when making a differential diagnosis into the current algorithm is, pragmatically speaking, a “good approach.”

From this standpoint, the danger of using machine learning to answer clinical questions is that it “doesn’t take the responsibility” for the final decision, which means “we’re closing the loop of subjective decision-making for an individual doctor.”

He also applauded the idea of trying to provide more uniform patient assessment across Europe, although he believes “we have a long way to go” before it can deliver on the promise of personalized medicine.

Like Dr. Frisoni, Dr. Draganski noted the fact that patients with potential neurocognitive disorders often have multiple pathologies, which can include cardiovascular problems, depression, and cancer and that that could affect the choice of diagnostic biomarkers.

The second issue, he said, concerns implementation of the consensus document, which is a political decision that centers around “how politicians will define ‘uniformity’ and equal access to technological or nontechnological platforms.”

Achieving uniformity will require a pan-regional collaboration, he noted.

The task force was supported by unrestricted grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, and OM Pharma Suisse SA. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Kate Whitley was petrified of COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic because she has Hashimoto disease, an autoimmune disorder that she knew put her at high risk for complications.

She was right to be worried. Two months after contracting the infection in September 2022, the 42-year-old Nashville resident was diagnosed with long COVID. For Ms. Whitley, the resulting brain fog has been the most challenging factor. She is the owner of a successful paper goods store, and she can’t remember basic aspects of her job. She can’t tolerate loud noises and gets so distracted that she has trouble remembering what she was doing.

Ms. Whitley doesn’t like the term “brain fog” because it doesn’t begin to describe the dramatic disruption to her life over the past 7 months.

“I just can’t think anymore,” she said. “It makes you realize that you’re nothing without your brain. Sometimes I feel like a shell of my former self.”

Brain fog is among the most common symptoms of long COVID, and also one of the most poorly understood. A reported 46% of those diagnosed with long COVID complain of brain fog or a loss of memory. Many clinicians agree that the term is vague and often doesn’t truly represent the condition. That, in turn, makes it harder for doctors to diagnose and treat it. There are no standard tests for it, nor are there guidelines for symptom management or treatment.

“There’s a lot of imprecision in the term because it might mean different things to different patients,” said James C. Jackson, PsyD, a neuropsychiatrist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and author of a new book, “Clearing the Fog: From Surviving to Thriving With Long COVID – A Practical Guide.”

Dr. Jackson, who began treating Ms. Whitley in February 2023, said that it makes more sense to call brain fog a brain impairment or an acquired brain injury (ABI) because it doesn’t occur gradually. COVID damages the brain and causes injury. For those with long COVID who were previously in the intensive care unit and may have undergone ventilation, hypoxic brain injury may result from the lack of oxygen to the brain.

Even among those with milder cases of acute COVID, there’s some evidence that persistent neuroinflammation in the brain caused by an activated immune system may also cause damage.

In both cases, the results can be debilitating. Ms. Whitley also has dysautonomia – a disorder of the autonomic nervous system that can cause dizziness, sweating, and headaches along with fatigue and heart palpitations.

She said that she’s so forgetful that when she sees people socially, she’s nervous of what she’ll say. “I feel like I’m constantly sticking my foot in my mouth because I can’t remember details of other people’s lives,” she said.

Although brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia are marked by a slow decline, ABI occurs more suddenly and may include a loss of executive function and attention.

“With a brain injury, you’re doing fine, and then some event happens (in this case COVID), and immediately after that, your cognitive function is different,” said Dr. Jackson.

Additionally, ABI is an actual diagnosis, whereas brain fog is not.

“With a brain injury, there’s a treatment pathway for cognitive rehabilitation,” said Dr. Jackson.

Treatments may include speech, cognitive, and occupational therapy as well as meeting with a neuropsychiatrist for treatment of the mental and behavioral disorders that may result. Dr. Jackson said that while many patients aren’t functioning cognitively or physically at 100%, they can make enough strides that they don’t have to give up things such as driving and, in some cases, their jobs.

Other experts agree that long COVID may damage the brain. An April 2022 study published in the journal Nature found strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection may cause brain-related abnormalities, for example, a reduction in gray matter in certain parts of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, hypothalamus, and amygdala.

Additionally, white matter, which is found deeper in the brain and is responsible for the exchange of information between different parts of the brain, may also be at risk of damage as a result of the virus, according to a November 2022 study published in the journal SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine.

Calling it a “fog” makes it easier for clinicians and the general public to dismiss its severity, said Tyler Reed Bell, PhD, a researcher who specializes in viruses that cause brain injury. He is a fellow in the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. Brain fog can make driving and returning to work especially dangerous. Because of difficulty focusing, patients are much more likely to make mistakes that cause accidents.

“The COVID virus is very invasive to the brain,” Dr. Bell said.

Others contend this may be a rush to judgment. Karla L. Thompson, PhD, lead neuropsychologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s COVID Recovery Clinic, agrees that in more serious cases of COVID that cause a lack of oxygen to the brain, it’s reasonable to call it a brain injury. But brain fog can also be associated with other long COVID symptoms, not just damage to the brain.

Chronic fatigue and poor sleep are both commonly reported symptoms of long COVID that negatively affect brain function, she said. Sleep disturbances, cardiac problems, dysautonomia, and emotional distress could also affect the way the brain functions post COVID. Finding the right treatment requires identifying all the factors contributing to cognitive impairment.

Part of the problem in treating long COVID brain fog is that diagnostic technology is not sensitive enough to detect inflammation that could be causing damage.

Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said her team is working on identifying biomarkers that could detect brain inflammation in a way similar to the manner researchers have identified biomarkers to help diagnose chronic fatigue syndrome. Additionally, a new study published last month in JAMA for the first time clearly defined 12 symptoms of long COVID, and brain fog was listed among them. All of this contributes to the development of clear diagnostic criteria.

“It will make a big difference once we have some consistency among clinicians in diagnosing the condition,” said Dr. McComsey.

Ms. Whitley is thankful for the treatment that she’s received thus far. She’s seeing a cognitive rehabilitation therapist, who assesses her memory, cognition, and attention span and gives her tools to break up simple tasks, such as driving, so that they don’t feel overwhelming. She’s back behind the wheel and back to work.

But perhaps most importantly, Ms. Whitley joined a support group, led by Dr. Jackson, that includes other people experiencing the same symptoms she is. When she was at her darkest, they understood.

“Talking to other survivors has been the only solace in all this,” Ms. Whitley said. “Together, we grieve all that’s been lost.”

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

Kate Whitley was petrified of COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic because she has Hashimoto disease, an autoimmune disorder that she knew put her at high risk for complications.

She was right to be worried. Two months after contracting the infection in September 2022, the 42-year-old Nashville resident was diagnosed with long COVID. For Ms. Whitley, the resulting brain fog has been the most challenging factor. She is the owner of a successful paper goods store, and she can’t remember basic aspects of her job. She can’t tolerate loud noises and gets so distracted that she has trouble remembering what she was doing.

Ms. Whitley doesn’t like the term “brain fog” because it doesn’t begin to describe the dramatic disruption to her life over the past 7 months.

“I just can’t think anymore,” she said. “It makes you realize that you’re nothing without your brain. Sometimes I feel like a shell of my former self.”

Brain fog is among the most common symptoms of long COVID, and also one of the most poorly understood. A reported 46% of those diagnosed with long COVID complain of brain fog or a loss of memory. Many clinicians agree that the term is vague and often doesn’t truly represent the condition. That, in turn, makes it harder for doctors to diagnose and treat it. There are no standard tests for it, nor are there guidelines for symptom management or treatment.

“There’s a lot of imprecision in the term because it might mean different things to different patients,” said James C. Jackson, PsyD, a neuropsychiatrist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and author of a new book, “Clearing the Fog: From Surviving to Thriving With Long COVID – A Practical Guide.”

Dr. Jackson, who began treating Ms. Whitley in February 2023, said that it makes more sense to call brain fog a brain impairment or an acquired brain injury (ABI) because it doesn’t occur gradually. COVID damages the brain and causes injury. For those with long COVID who were previously in the intensive care unit and may have undergone ventilation, hypoxic brain injury may result from the lack of oxygen to the brain.

Even among those with milder cases of acute COVID, there’s some evidence that persistent neuroinflammation in the brain caused by an activated immune system may also cause damage.

In both cases, the results can be debilitating. Ms. Whitley also has dysautonomia – a disorder of the autonomic nervous system that can cause dizziness, sweating, and headaches along with fatigue and heart palpitations.

She said that she’s so forgetful that when she sees people socially, she’s nervous of what she’ll say. “I feel like I’m constantly sticking my foot in my mouth because I can’t remember details of other people’s lives,” she said.

Although brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia are marked by a slow decline, ABI occurs more suddenly and may include a loss of executive function and attention.

“With a brain injury, you’re doing fine, and then some event happens (in this case COVID), and immediately after that, your cognitive function is different,” said Dr. Jackson.

Additionally, ABI is an actual diagnosis, whereas brain fog is not.

“With a brain injury, there’s a treatment pathway for cognitive rehabilitation,” said Dr. Jackson.

Treatments may include speech, cognitive, and occupational therapy as well as meeting with a neuropsychiatrist for treatment of the mental and behavioral disorders that may result. Dr. Jackson said that while many patients aren’t functioning cognitively or physically at 100%, they can make enough strides that they don’t have to give up things such as driving and, in some cases, their jobs.

Other experts agree that long COVID may damage the brain. An April 2022 study published in the journal Nature found strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection may cause brain-related abnormalities, for example, a reduction in gray matter in certain parts of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, hypothalamus, and amygdala.

Additionally, white matter, which is found deeper in the brain and is responsible for the exchange of information between different parts of the brain, may also be at risk of damage as a result of the virus, according to a November 2022 study published in the journal SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine.

Calling it a “fog” makes it easier for clinicians and the general public to dismiss its severity, said Tyler Reed Bell, PhD, a researcher who specializes in viruses that cause brain injury. He is a fellow in the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. Brain fog can make driving and returning to work especially dangerous. Because of difficulty focusing, patients are much more likely to make mistakes that cause accidents.

“The COVID virus is very invasive to the brain,” Dr. Bell said.

Others contend this may be a rush to judgment. Karla L. Thompson, PhD, lead neuropsychologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s COVID Recovery Clinic, agrees that in more serious cases of COVID that cause a lack of oxygen to the brain, it’s reasonable to call it a brain injury. But brain fog can also be associated with other long COVID symptoms, not just damage to the brain.

Chronic fatigue and poor sleep are both commonly reported symptoms of long COVID that negatively affect brain function, she said. Sleep disturbances, cardiac problems, dysautonomia, and emotional distress could also affect the way the brain functions post COVID. Finding the right treatment requires identifying all the factors contributing to cognitive impairment.

Part of the problem in treating long COVID brain fog is that diagnostic technology is not sensitive enough to detect inflammation that could be causing damage.

Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said her team is working on identifying biomarkers that could detect brain inflammation in a way similar to the manner researchers have identified biomarkers to help diagnose chronic fatigue syndrome. Additionally, a new study published last month in JAMA for the first time clearly defined 12 symptoms of long COVID, and brain fog was listed among them. All of this contributes to the development of clear diagnostic criteria.

“It will make a big difference once we have some consistency among clinicians in diagnosing the condition,” said Dr. McComsey.

Ms. Whitley is thankful for the treatment that she’s received thus far. She’s seeing a cognitive rehabilitation therapist, who assesses her memory, cognition, and attention span and gives her tools to break up simple tasks, such as driving, so that they don’t feel overwhelming. She’s back behind the wheel and back to work.

But perhaps most importantly, Ms. Whitley joined a support group, led by Dr. Jackson, that includes other people experiencing the same symptoms she is. When she was at her darkest, they understood.

“Talking to other survivors has been the only solace in all this,” Ms. Whitley said. “Together, we grieve all that’s been lost.”

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

Kate Whitley was petrified of COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic because she has Hashimoto disease, an autoimmune disorder that she knew put her at high risk for complications.

She was right to be worried. Two months after contracting the infection in September 2022, the 42-year-old Nashville resident was diagnosed with long COVID. For Ms. Whitley, the resulting brain fog has been the most challenging factor. She is the owner of a successful paper goods store, and she can’t remember basic aspects of her job. She can’t tolerate loud noises and gets so distracted that she has trouble remembering what she was doing.

Ms. Whitley doesn’t like the term “brain fog” because it doesn’t begin to describe the dramatic disruption to her life over the past 7 months.

“I just can’t think anymore,” she said. “It makes you realize that you’re nothing without your brain. Sometimes I feel like a shell of my former self.”

Brain fog is among the most common symptoms of long COVID, and also one of the most poorly understood. A reported 46% of those diagnosed with long COVID complain of brain fog or a loss of memory. Many clinicians agree that the term is vague and often doesn’t truly represent the condition. That, in turn, makes it harder for doctors to diagnose and treat it. There are no standard tests for it, nor are there guidelines for symptom management or treatment.

“There’s a lot of imprecision in the term because it might mean different things to different patients,” said James C. Jackson, PsyD, a neuropsychiatrist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and author of a new book, “Clearing the Fog: From Surviving to Thriving With Long COVID – A Practical Guide.”

Dr. Jackson, who began treating Ms. Whitley in February 2023, said that it makes more sense to call brain fog a brain impairment or an acquired brain injury (ABI) because it doesn’t occur gradually. COVID damages the brain and causes injury. For those with long COVID who were previously in the intensive care unit and may have undergone ventilation, hypoxic brain injury may result from the lack of oxygen to the brain.

Even among those with milder cases of acute COVID, there’s some evidence that persistent neuroinflammation in the brain caused by an activated immune system may also cause damage.

In both cases, the results can be debilitating. Ms. Whitley also has dysautonomia – a disorder of the autonomic nervous system that can cause dizziness, sweating, and headaches along with fatigue and heart palpitations.

She said that she’s so forgetful that when she sees people socially, she’s nervous of what she’ll say. “I feel like I’m constantly sticking my foot in my mouth because I can’t remember details of other people’s lives,” she said.

Although brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia are marked by a slow decline, ABI occurs more suddenly and may include a loss of executive function and attention.

“With a brain injury, you’re doing fine, and then some event happens (in this case COVID), and immediately after that, your cognitive function is different,” said Dr. Jackson.

Additionally, ABI is an actual diagnosis, whereas brain fog is not.

“With a brain injury, there’s a treatment pathway for cognitive rehabilitation,” said Dr. Jackson.

Treatments may include speech, cognitive, and occupational therapy as well as meeting with a neuropsychiatrist for treatment of the mental and behavioral disorders that may result. Dr. Jackson said that while many patients aren’t functioning cognitively or physically at 100%, they can make enough strides that they don’t have to give up things such as driving and, in some cases, their jobs.

Other experts agree that long COVID may damage the brain. An April 2022 study published in the journal Nature found strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection may cause brain-related abnormalities, for example, a reduction in gray matter in certain parts of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, hypothalamus, and amygdala.

Additionally, white matter, which is found deeper in the brain and is responsible for the exchange of information between different parts of the brain, may also be at risk of damage as a result of the virus, according to a November 2022 study published in the journal SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine.

Calling it a “fog” makes it easier for clinicians and the general public to dismiss its severity, said Tyler Reed Bell, PhD, a researcher who specializes in viruses that cause brain injury. He is a fellow in the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. Brain fog can make driving and returning to work especially dangerous. Because of difficulty focusing, patients are much more likely to make mistakes that cause accidents.

“The COVID virus is very invasive to the brain,” Dr. Bell said.

Others contend this may be a rush to judgment. Karla L. Thompson, PhD, lead neuropsychologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s COVID Recovery Clinic, agrees that in more serious cases of COVID that cause a lack of oxygen to the brain, it’s reasonable to call it a brain injury. But brain fog can also be associated with other long COVID symptoms, not just damage to the brain.

Chronic fatigue and poor sleep are both commonly reported symptoms of long COVID that negatively affect brain function, she said. Sleep disturbances, cardiac problems, dysautonomia, and emotional distress could also affect the way the brain functions post COVID. Finding the right treatment requires identifying all the factors contributing to cognitive impairment.

Part of the problem in treating long COVID brain fog is that diagnostic technology is not sensitive enough to detect inflammation that could be causing damage.

Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said her team is working on identifying biomarkers that could detect brain inflammation in a way similar to the manner researchers have identified biomarkers to help diagnose chronic fatigue syndrome. Additionally, a new study published last month in JAMA for the first time clearly defined 12 symptoms of long COVID, and brain fog was listed among them. All of this contributes to the development of clear diagnostic criteria.

“It will make a big difference once we have some consistency among clinicians in diagnosing the condition,” said Dr. McComsey.

Ms. Whitley is thankful for the treatment that she’s received thus far. She’s seeing a cognitive rehabilitation therapist, who assesses her memory, cognition, and attention span and gives her tools to break up simple tasks, such as driving, so that they don’t feel overwhelming. She’s back behind the wheel and back to work.

But perhaps most importantly, Ms. Whitley joined a support group, led by Dr. Jackson, that includes other people experiencing the same symptoms she is. When she was at her darkest, they understood.

“Talking to other survivors has been the only solace in all this,” Ms. Whitley said. “Together, we grieve all that’s been lost.”

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

TOPLINE:

The availability of medical cannabis has little effect on prescription rates of opioids, nonopioid pain medicines, and other pain interventions, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cannabis advocates suggest that legal medical cannabis can be a partial solution to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which claimed more than 80,000 lives in 2021.
• Current research on how legalized cannabis reduces dependence on prescription pain medication is inconclusive.
• Researchers examined insurance data for the period 2010-2022 from 583,820 adults with chronic noncancer pain.
• They drew from 12 states in which medical cannabis is legal and from 17 in which it is not legal to create a hypothetical randomized trial. The control group simulated prescription rates where medical cannabis was not available.
• Authors evaluated prescription rates for opioids, nonopioid painkillers, and pain interventions, such as physical therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

In a given month during the first 3 years after legalization, for states with medical cannabis, the investigators found the following:

• There was an average decrease of 1.07 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any opioid prescription, compared to a 1.12 percentage point decrease in the control group.
• There was an average increase of 1.14 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any nonopioid prescription painkiller, compared to a 1.19 percentage point increase in the control group.
• There was a 0.17 percentage point decrease in the proportion of patients who received any pain procedure, compared to a 0.001 percentage point decrease in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain,” according to the researchers.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Emma E. McGinty, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators used a simulated, hypothetical control group that was based on untestable assumptions. They also drew data solely from insured individuals, so the study does not necessarily represent uninsured populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. McGinty reports receiving a grant from NIDA. Her coauthors reported receiving support from NIDA and the National Institutes of Health.

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

TOPLINE:

The availability of medical cannabis has little effect on prescription rates of opioids, nonopioid pain medicines, and other pain interventions, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cannabis advocates suggest that legal medical cannabis can be a partial solution to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which claimed more than 80,000 lives in 2021.
• Current research on how legalized cannabis reduces dependence on prescription pain medication is inconclusive.
• Researchers examined insurance data for the period 2010-2022 from 583,820 adults with chronic noncancer pain.
• They drew from 12 states in which medical cannabis is legal and from 17 in which it is not legal to create a hypothetical randomized trial. The control group simulated prescription rates where medical cannabis was not available.
• Authors evaluated prescription rates for opioids, nonopioid painkillers, and pain interventions, such as physical therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

In a given month during the first 3 years after legalization, for states with medical cannabis, the investigators found the following:

• There was an average decrease of 1.07 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any opioid prescription, compared to a 1.12 percentage point decrease in the control group.
• There was an average increase of 1.14 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any nonopioid prescription painkiller, compared to a 1.19 percentage point increase in the control group.
• There was a 0.17 percentage point decrease in the proportion of patients who received any pain procedure, compared to a 0.001 percentage point decrease in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain,” according to the researchers.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Emma E. McGinty, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators used a simulated, hypothetical control group that was based on untestable assumptions. They also drew data solely from insured individuals, so the study does not necessarily represent uninsured populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. McGinty reports receiving a grant from NIDA. Her coauthors reported receiving support from NIDA and the National Institutes of Health.

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

TOPLINE:

The availability of medical cannabis has little effect on prescription rates of opioids, nonopioid pain medicines, and other pain interventions, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cannabis advocates suggest that legal medical cannabis can be a partial solution to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which claimed more than 80,000 lives in 2021.
• Current research on how legalized cannabis reduces dependence on prescription pain medication is inconclusive.
• Researchers examined insurance data for the period 2010-2022 from 583,820 adults with chronic noncancer pain.
• They drew from 12 states in which medical cannabis is legal and from 17 in which it is not legal to create a hypothetical randomized trial. The control group simulated prescription rates where medical cannabis was not available.
• Authors evaluated prescription rates for opioids, nonopioid painkillers, and pain interventions, such as physical therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

In a given month during the first 3 years after legalization, for states with medical cannabis, the investigators found the following:

• There was an average decrease of 1.07 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any opioid prescription, compared to a 1.12 percentage point decrease in the control group.
• There was an average increase of 1.14 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any nonopioid prescription painkiller, compared to a 1.19 percentage point increase in the control group.
• There was a 0.17 percentage point decrease in the proportion of patients who received any pain procedure, compared to a 0.001 percentage point decrease in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain,” according to the researchers.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Emma E. McGinty, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators used a simulated, hypothetical control group that was based on untestable assumptions. They also drew data solely from insured individuals, so the study does not necessarily represent uninsured populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. McGinty reports receiving a grant from NIDA. Her coauthors reported receiving support from NIDA and the National Institutes of Health.

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

Lean muscle mass may offer protection against the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed data on more than 450,000 participants in the UK Biobank as well as two independent samples of more than 320,000 individuals with and without AD, and more than 260,000 individuals participating in a separate genes and intelligence study.

They estimated lean muscle and fat tissue in the arms and legs and found, in adjusted analyses, over 500 genetic variants associated with lean mass.

On average, higher genetically lean mass was associated with a “modest but statistically robust” reduction in AD risk and with superior performance on cognitive tasks.

“Using human genetic data, we found evidence for a protective effect of lean mass on risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” study investigators Iyas Daghlas, MD, a resident in the department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Although “clinical intervention studies are needed to confirm this effect, this study supports current recommendations to maintain a healthy lifestyle to prevent dementia,” he said.

The study was published online in BMJ Medicine.
 

Naturally randomized research

Several measures of body composition have been investigated for their potential association with AD. Lean mass – a “proxy for muscle mass, defined as the difference between total mass and fat mass” – has been shown to be reduced in patients with AD compared with controls, the researchers noted.

“Previous research studies have tested the relationship of body mass index with Alzheimer’s disease and did not find evidence for a causal effect,” Dr. Daghlas said. “We wondered whether BMI was an insufficiently granular measure and hypothesized that disaggregating body mass into lean mass and fat mass could reveal novel associations with disease.”

Most studies have used case-control designs, which might be biased by “residual confounding or reverse causality.” Naturally randomized data “may be used as an alternative to conventional observational studies to investigate causal relations between risk factors and diseases,” the researchers wrote.

In particular, the Mendelian randomization (MR) paradigm randomly allocates germline genetic variants and uses them as proxies for a specific risk factor.

MR “is a technique that permits researchers to investigate cause-and-effect relationships using human genetic data,” Dr. Daghlas explained. “In effect, we’re studying the results of a naturally randomized experiment whereby some individuals are genetically allocated to carry more lean mass.” 

The current study used MR to investigate the effect of genetically proxied lean mass on the risk of AD and the “related phenotype” of cognitive performance.
 

Genetic proxy

As genetic proxies for lean mass, the researchers chose single nucleotide polymorphisms (genetic variants) that were associated, in a genome-wide association study (GWAS), with appendicular lean mass.

Appendicular lean mass “more accurately reflects the effects of lean mass than whole body lean mass, which includes smooth and cardiac muscle,” the authors explained.

This GWAS used phenotypic and genetic data from 450,243 participants in the UK Biobank cohort (mean age 57 years). All participants were of European ancestry.

The researchers adjusted for age, sex, and genetic ancestry. They measured appendicular lean mass using bioimpedance – an electric current that flows at different rates through the body, depending on its composition.

In addition to the UK Biobank participants, the researchers drew on an independent sample of 21,982 people with AD; a control group of 41,944 people without AD; a replication sample of 7,329 people with and 252,879 people without AD to validate the findings; and 269,867 people taking part in a genome-wide study of cognitive performance.

The researchers identified 584 variants that met criteria for use as genetic proxies for lean mass. None were located within the APOE gene region. In the aggregate, these variants explained 10.3% of the variance in appendicular lean mass.

Each standard deviation increase in genetically proxied lean mass was associated with a 12% reduction in AD risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.95; P < .001). This finding was replicated in the independent consortium (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .02).

The findings remained “consistent” in sensitivity analyses.
 

A modifiable risk factor?

Higher appendicular lean mass was associated with higher levels of cognitive performance, with each SD increase in lean mass associated with an SD increase in cognitive performance (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.11; P = .001).

“Adjusting for potential mediation through performance did not reduce the association between appendicular lean mass and risk of AD,” the authors wrote.

They obtained similar results using genetically proxied trunk and whole-body lean mass, after adjusting for fat mass.

The authors noted several limitations. The bioimpedance measures “only predict, but do not directly measure, lean mass.” Moreover, the approach didn’t examine whether a “critical window of risk factor timing” exists, during which lean mass might play a role in influencing AD risk and after which “interventions would no longer be effective.” Nor could the study determine whether increasing lean mass could reverse AD pathology in patients with preclinical disease or mild cognitive impairment.

Nevertheless, the findings suggest “that lean mass might be a possible modifiable protective factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” the authors wrote. “The mechanisms underlying this finding, as well as the clinical and public health implications, warrant further investigation.”
 

Novel strategies

In a comment, Iva Miljkovic, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, said the investigators used “very rigorous methodology.”

The finding suggesting that lean mass is associated with better cognitive function is “important, as cognitive impairment can become stable rather than progress to a pathological state; and, in some cases, can even be reversed.”

In those cases, “identifying the underlying cause – e.g., low lean mass – can significantly improve cognitive function,” said Dr. Miljkovic, senior author of a study showing muscle fat as a risk factor for cognitive decline.

More research will enable us to “expand our understanding” of the mechanisms involved and determine whether interventions aimed at preventing muscle loss and/or increasing muscle fat may have a beneficial effect on cognitive function,” she said. “This might lead to novel strategies to prevent AD.”

Dr. Daghlas is supported by the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence at Imperial College, London, and is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Miljkovic reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lean muscle mass may offer protection against the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed data on more than 450,000 participants in the UK Biobank as well as two independent samples of more than 320,000 individuals with and without AD, and more than 260,000 individuals participating in a separate genes and intelligence study.

They estimated lean muscle and fat tissue in the arms and legs and found, in adjusted analyses, over 500 genetic variants associated with lean mass.

On average, higher genetically lean mass was associated with a “modest but statistically robust” reduction in AD risk and with superior performance on cognitive tasks.

“Using human genetic data, we found evidence for a protective effect of lean mass on risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” study investigators Iyas Daghlas, MD, a resident in the department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Although “clinical intervention studies are needed to confirm this effect, this study supports current recommendations to maintain a healthy lifestyle to prevent dementia,” he said.

The study was published online in BMJ Medicine.
 

Naturally randomized research

Several measures of body composition have been investigated for their potential association with AD. Lean mass – a “proxy for muscle mass, defined as the difference between total mass and fat mass” – has been shown to be reduced in patients with AD compared with controls, the researchers noted.

“Previous research studies have tested the relationship of body mass index with Alzheimer’s disease and did not find evidence for a causal effect,” Dr. Daghlas said. “We wondered whether BMI was an insufficiently granular measure and hypothesized that disaggregating body mass into lean mass and fat mass could reveal novel associations with disease.”

Most studies have used case-control designs, which might be biased by “residual confounding or reverse causality.” Naturally randomized data “may be used as an alternative to conventional observational studies to investigate causal relations between risk factors and diseases,” the researchers wrote.

In particular, the Mendelian randomization (MR) paradigm randomly allocates germline genetic variants and uses them as proxies for a specific risk factor.

MR “is a technique that permits researchers to investigate cause-and-effect relationships using human genetic data,” Dr. Daghlas explained. “In effect, we’re studying the results of a naturally randomized experiment whereby some individuals are genetically allocated to carry more lean mass.” 

The current study used MR to investigate the effect of genetically proxied lean mass on the risk of AD and the “related phenotype” of cognitive performance.
 

Genetic proxy

As genetic proxies for lean mass, the researchers chose single nucleotide polymorphisms (genetic variants) that were associated, in a genome-wide association study (GWAS), with appendicular lean mass.

Appendicular lean mass “more accurately reflects the effects of lean mass than whole body lean mass, which includes smooth and cardiac muscle,” the authors explained.

This GWAS used phenotypic and genetic data from 450,243 participants in the UK Biobank cohort (mean age 57 years). All participants were of European ancestry.

The researchers adjusted for age, sex, and genetic ancestry. They measured appendicular lean mass using bioimpedance – an electric current that flows at different rates through the body, depending on its composition.

In addition to the UK Biobank participants, the researchers drew on an independent sample of 21,982 people with AD; a control group of 41,944 people without AD; a replication sample of 7,329 people with and 252,879 people without AD to validate the findings; and 269,867 people taking part in a genome-wide study of cognitive performance.

The researchers identified 584 variants that met criteria for use as genetic proxies for lean mass. None were located within the APOE gene region. In the aggregate, these variants explained 10.3% of the variance in appendicular lean mass.

Each standard deviation increase in genetically proxied lean mass was associated with a 12% reduction in AD risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.95; P < .001). This finding was replicated in the independent consortium (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .02).

The findings remained “consistent” in sensitivity analyses.
 

A modifiable risk factor?

Higher appendicular lean mass was associated with higher levels of cognitive performance, with each SD increase in lean mass associated with an SD increase in cognitive performance (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.11; P = .001).

“Adjusting for potential mediation through performance did not reduce the association between appendicular lean mass and risk of AD,” the authors wrote.

They obtained similar results using genetically proxied trunk and whole-body lean mass, after adjusting for fat mass.

The authors noted several limitations. The bioimpedance measures “only predict, but do not directly measure, lean mass.” Moreover, the approach didn’t examine whether a “critical window of risk factor timing” exists, during which lean mass might play a role in influencing AD risk and after which “interventions would no longer be effective.” Nor could the study determine whether increasing lean mass could reverse AD pathology in patients with preclinical disease or mild cognitive impairment.

Nevertheless, the findings suggest “that lean mass might be a possible modifiable protective factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” the authors wrote. “The mechanisms underlying this finding, as well as the clinical and public health implications, warrant further investigation.”
 

Novel strategies

In a comment, Iva Miljkovic, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, said the investigators used “very rigorous methodology.”

The finding suggesting that lean mass is associated with better cognitive function is “important, as cognitive impairment can become stable rather than progress to a pathological state; and, in some cases, can even be reversed.”

In those cases, “identifying the underlying cause – e.g., low lean mass – can significantly improve cognitive function,” said Dr. Miljkovic, senior author of a study showing muscle fat as a risk factor for cognitive decline.

More research will enable us to “expand our understanding” of the mechanisms involved and determine whether interventions aimed at preventing muscle loss and/or increasing muscle fat may have a beneficial effect on cognitive function,” she said. “This might lead to novel strategies to prevent AD.”

Dr. Daghlas is supported by the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence at Imperial College, London, and is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Miljkovic reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lean muscle mass may offer protection against the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed data on more than 450,000 participants in the UK Biobank as well as two independent samples of more than 320,000 individuals with and without AD, and more than 260,000 individuals participating in a separate genes and intelligence study.

They estimated lean muscle and fat tissue in the arms and legs and found, in adjusted analyses, over 500 genetic variants associated with lean mass.

On average, higher genetically lean mass was associated with a “modest but statistically robust” reduction in AD risk and with superior performance on cognitive tasks.

“Using human genetic data, we found evidence for a protective effect of lean mass on risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” study investigators Iyas Daghlas, MD, a resident in the department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Although “clinical intervention studies are needed to confirm this effect, this study supports current recommendations to maintain a healthy lifestyle to prevent dementia,” he said.

The study was published online in BMJ Medicine.
 

Naturally randomized research

Several measures of body composition have been investigated for their potential association with AD. Lean mass – a “proxy for muscle mass, defined as the difference between total mass and fat mass” – has been shown to be reduced in patients with AD compared with controls, the researchers noted.

“Previous research studies have tested the relationship of body mass index with Alzheimer’s disease and did not find evidence for a causal effect,” Dr. Daghlas said. “We wondered whether BMI was an insufficiently granular measure and hypothesized that disaggregating body mass into lean mass and fat mass could reveal novel associations with disease.”

Most studies have used case-control designs, which might be biased by “residual confounding or reverse causality.” Naturally randomized data “may be used as an alternative to conventional observational studies to investigate causal relations between risk factors and diseases,” the researchers wrote.

In particular, the Mendelian randomization (MR) paradigm randomly allocates germline genetic variants and uses them as proxies for a specific risk factor.

MR “is a technique that permits researchers to investigate cause-and-effect relationships using human genetic data,” Dr. Daghlas explained. “In effect, we’re studying the results of a naturally randomized experiment whereby some individuals are genetically allocated to carry more lean mass.” 

The current study used MR to investigate the effect of genetically proxied lean mass on the risk of AD and the “related phenotype” of cognitive performance.
 

Genetic proxy

As genetic proxies for lean mass, the researchers chose single nucleotide polymorphisms (genetic variants) that were associated, in a genome-wide association study (GWAS), with appendicular lean mass.

Appendicular lean mass “more accurately reflects the effects of lean mass than whole body lean mass, which includes smooth and cardiac muscle,” the authors explained.

This GWAS used phenotypic and genetic data from 450,243 participants in the UK Biobank cohort (mean age 57 years). All participants were of European ancestry.

The researchers adjusted for age, sex, and genetic ancestry. They measured appendicular lean mass using bioimpedance – an electric current that flows at different rates through the body, depending on its composition.

In addition to the UK Biobank participants, the researchers drew on an independent sample of 21,982 people with AD; a control group of 41,944 people without AD; a replication sample of 7,329 people with and 252,879 people without AD to validate the findings; and 269,867 people taking part in a genome-wide study of cognitive performance.

The researchers identified 584 variants that met criteria for use as genetic proxies for lean mass. None were located within the APOE gene region. In the aggregate, these variants explained 10.3% of the variance in appendicular lean mass.

Each standard deviation increase in genetically proxied lean mass was associated with a 12% reduction in AD risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.95; P < .001). This finding was replicated in the independent consortium (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .02).

The findings remained “consistent” in sensitivity analyses.
 

A modifiable risk factor?

Higher appendicular lean mass was associated with higher levels of cognitive performance, with each SD increase in lean mass associated with an SD increase in cognitive performance (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.11; P = .001).

“Adjusting for potential mediation through performance did not reduce the association between appendicular lean mass and risk of AD,” the authors wrote.

They obtained similar results using genetically proxied trunk and whole-body lean mass, after adjusting for fat mass.

The authors noted several limitations. The bioimpedance measures “only predict, but do not directly measure, lean mass.” Moreover, the approach didn’t examine whether a “critical window of risk factor timing” exists, during which lean mass might play a role in influencing AD risk and after which “interventions would no longer be effective.” Nor could the study determine whether increasing lean mass could reverse AD pathology in patients with preclinical disease or mild cognitive impairment.

Nevertheless, the findings suggest “that lean mass might be a possible modifiable protective factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” the authors wrote. “The mechanisms underlying this finding, as well as the clinical and public health implications, warrant further investigation.”
 

Novel strategies

In a comment, Iva Miljkovic, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, said the investigators used “very rigorous methodology.”

The finding suggesting that lean mass is associated with better cognitive function is “important, as cognitive impairment can become stable rather than progress to a pathological state; and, in some cases, can even be reversed.”

In those cases, “identifying the underlying cause – e.g., low lean mass – can significantly improve cognitive function,” said Dr. Miljkovic, senior author of a study showing muscle fat as a risk factor for cognitive decline.

More research will enable us to “expand our understanding” of the mechanisms involved and determine whether interventions aimed at preventing muscle loss and/or increasing muscle fat may have a beneficial effect on cognitive function,” she said. “This might lead to novel strategies to prevent AD.”

Dr. Daghlas is supported by the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence at Imperial College, London, and is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Miljkovic reports no relevant financial relationships.

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