MDedge Psychiatry

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health clinics in the United States successfully upheld the standard of care for patients with schizophrenia using telepsychiatry and long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs), new survey data show.

“Mental health centers rose to the challenge and did what they needed to do for their patients,” study investigator Dawn Velligan, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, told this news organization.

“Some decided to put patients on longer-acting injectable formulations. Some centers gave injections outside to make people feel safer,” Dr. Velligan said.

She added that other patients who might not have had transportation, or were too afraid to come in, were switched to oral medications. However, “switching to orals isn’t something that should be done lightly. I would only want patients to switch to orals as a last resort, but you do what you have to do,” Dr. Velligan said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

No going back?

When COVID hit, many mental health clinics closed for in-person visits. “This was unprecedented and we wanted to understand how clinics adapted their services and clinical management of patients with schizophrenia” on LAIs, Dr. Velligan said.

She and her colleagues surveyed 35 mental health clinics, with one respondent at each clinic, between October and November 2020.

All 35 clinics reported using telepsychiatry; 15 had been using telepsychiatry before the pandemic, while 20 (57%) began using it after COVID hit.

Across outpatient visit types, telepsychiatry use for noninjection visits rose from 12%-15% before the pandemic to 45%-69% after the pandemic.

In addition, patients were more apt to keep their telehealth visit. The frequency of appointment “no shows” and/or cancellations for telepsychiatry visits decreased by roughly one-third after the pandemic, compared with before the pandemic.

For patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs, the frequency of telepsychiatry visits increased in 46% of the clinics during the pandemic.

For these patients, management options included switching patients from LAIs to oral antipsychotics in 34% of clinics and switching patients to LAIs with longer injection intervals in 31% of clinics.

Chief barriers to telepsychiatry visits were low reimbursement rate and lack of access to technology/reliable Internet.

Nearly all respondents reported being satisfied with the use of telepsychiatry to support patients with schizophrenia, whether treated with LAIs (94%) or with oral antipsychotics (97%).

Sixty percent of respondents reported no change in medication adherence for patients treated with LAIs since the start of the pandemic, while less than half (43%) reported no change in adherence to oral antipsychotics.

Most respondents (69%) felt that telepsychiatry visits would very likely continue to be used in combination with in-person office visits after the pandemic.

“Telemedicine is here to stay,” Dr. Velligan said.
 

Moving to a ‘hybrid universe’

Hector Colon-Rivera, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and president of the APA’s Hispanic Caucus, agrees.

Commenting on the findings, he noted that, because of shifts in care brought on by COVID, psychiatrists had to adopt telemedicine practices. As a result, many “now feel more comfortable” with telehealth visits for medication management and psychotherapy, said Dr. Colon-Rivera, who was not involved with the research.

He added this study is important because it shows that even patients with severe mental illness can be successfully managed with telepsychiatry, and with good adherence.

“Especially for patients with schizophrenia who have access issues, telepsychiatry is really helpful,” Dr. Colon-Rivera said.

“Telepsychiatry is becoming standard. Most clinics are moving to the hybrid universe now by having a telemedicine component and also seeing patients in person. Even places like emergency rooms and psychiatrists who do consults on medical floors are using telepsychiatry as an option,” he added.

Study funding was provided by Alkermes. Dr. Velligan has reported financial relationships with Alkermes, Otsuka, Janssen, and Lyndra. Dr. Colon-Rivera has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health clinics in the United States successfully upheld the standard of care for patients with schizophrenia using telepsychiatry and long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs), new survey data show.

“Mental health centers rose to the challenge and did what they needed to do for their patients,” study investigator Dawn Velligan, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, told this news organization.

“Some decided to put patients on longer-acting injectable formulations. Some centers gave injections outside to make people feel safer,” Dr. Velligan said.

She added that other patients who might not have had transportation, or were too afraid to come in, were switched to oral medications. However, “switching to orals isn’t something that should be done lightly. I would only want patients to switch to orals as a last resort, but you do what you have to do,” Dr. Velligan said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

No going back?

When COVID hit, many mental health clinics closed for in-person visits. “This was unprecedented and we wanted to understand how clinics adapted their services and clinical management of patients with schizophrenia” on LAIs, Dr. Velligan said.

She and her colleagues surveyed 35 mental health clinics, with one respondent at each clinic, between October and November 2020.

All 35 clinics reported using telepsychiatry; 15 had been using telepsychiatry before the pandemic, while 20 (57%) began using it after COVID hit.

Across outpatient visit types, telepsychiatry use for noninjection visits rose from 12%-15% before the pandemic to 45%-69% after the pandemic.

In addition, patients were more apt to keep their telehealth visit. The frequency of appointment “no shows” and/or cancellations for telepsychiatry visits decreased by roughly one-third after the pandemic, compared with before the pandemic.

For patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs, the frequency of telepsychiatry visits increased in 46% of the clinics during the pandemic.

For these patients, management options included switching patients from LAIs to oral antipsychotics in 34% of clinics and switching patients to LAIs with longer injection intervals in 31% of clinics.

Chief barriers to telepsychiatry visits were low reimbursement rate and lack of access to technology/reliable Internet.

Nearly all respondents reported being satisfied with the use of telepsychiatry to support patients with schizophrenia, whether treated with LAIs (94%) or with oral antipsychotics (97%).

Sixty percent of respondents reported no change in medication adherence for patients treated with LAIs since the start of the pandemic, while less than half (43%) reported no change in adherence to oral antipsychotics.

Most respondents (69%) felt that telepsychiatry visits would very likely continue to be used in combination with in-person office visits after the pandemic.

“Telemedicine is here to stay,” Dr. Velligan said.
 

Moving to a ‘hybrid universe’

Hector Colon-Rivera, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and president of the APA’s Hispanic Caucus, agrees.

Commenting on the findings, he noted that, because of shifts in care brought on by COVID, psychiatrists had to adopt telemedicine practices. As a result, many “now feel more comfortable” with telehealth visits for medication management and psychotherapy, said Dr. Colon-Rivera, who was not involved with the research.

He added this study is important because it shows that even patients with severe mental illness can be successfully managed with telepsychiatry, and with good adherence.

“Especially for patients with schizophrenia who have access issues, telepsychiatry is really helpful,” Dr. Colon-Rivera said.

“Telepsychiatry is becoming standard. Most clinics are moving to the hybrid universe now by having a telemedicine component and also seeing patients in person. Even places like emergency rooms and psychiatrists who do consults on medical floors are using telepsychiatry as an option,” he added.

Study funding was provided by Alkermes. Dr. Velligan has reported financial relationships with Alkermes, Otsuka, Janssen, and Lyndra. Dr. Colon-Rivera has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health clinics in the United States successfully upheld the standard of care for patients with schizophrenia using telepsychiatry and long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs), new survey data show.

“Mental health centers rose to the challenge and did what they needed to do for their patients,” study investigator Dawn Velligan, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, told this news organization.

“Some decided to put patients on longer-acting injectable formulations. Some centers gave injections outside to make people feel safer,” Dr. Velligan said.

She added that other patients who might not have had transportation, or were too afraid to come in, were switched to oral medications. However, “switching to orals isn’t something that should be done lightly. I would only want patients to switch to orals as a last resort, but you do what you have to do,” Dr. Velligan said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

No going back?

When COVID hit, many mental health clinics closed for in-person visits. “This was unprecedented and we wanted to understand how clinics adapted their services and clinical management of patients with schizophrenia” on LAIs, Dr. Velligan said.

She and her colleagues surveyed 35 mental health clinics, with one respondent at each clinic, between October and November 2020.

All 35 clinics reported using telepsychiatry; 15 had been using telepsychiatry before the pandemic, while 20 (57%) began using it after COVID hit.

Across outpatient visit types, telepsychiatry use for noninjection visits rose from 12%-15% before the pandemic to 45%-69% after the pandemic.

In addition, patients were more apt to keep their telehealth visit. The frequency of appointment “no shows” and/or cancellations for telepsychiatry visits decreased by roughly one-third after the pandemic, compared with before the pandemic.

For patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs, the frequency of telepsychiatry visits increased in 46% of the clinics during the pandemic.

For these patients, management options included switching patients from LAIs to oral antipsychotics in 34% of clinics and switching patients to LAIs with longer injection intervals in 31% of clinics.

Chief barriers to telepsychiatry visits were low reimbursement rate and lack of access to technology/reliable Internet.

Nearly all respondents reported being satisfied with the use of telepsychiatry to support patients with schizophrenia, whether treated with LAIs (94%) or with oral antipsychotics (97%).

Sixty percent of respondents reported no change in medication adherence for patients treated with LAIs since the start of the pandemic, while less than half (43%) reported no change in adherence to oral antipsychotics.

Most respondents (69%) felt that telepsychiatry visits would very likely continue to be used in combination with in-person office visits after the pandemic.

“Telemedicine is here to stay,” Dr. Velligan said.
 

Moving to a ‘hybrid universe’

Hector Colon-Rivera, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and president of the APA’s Hispanic Caucus, agrees.

Commenting on the findings, he noted that, because of shifts in care brought on by COVID, psychiatrists had to adopt telemedicine practices. As a result, many “now feel more comfortable” with telehealth visits for medication management and psychotherapy, said Dr. Colon-Rivera, who was not involved with the research.

He added this study is important because it shows that even patients with severe mental illness can be successfully managed with telepsychiatry, and with good adherence.

“Especially for patients with schizophrenia who have access issues, telepsychiatry is really helpful,” Dr. Colon-Rivera said.

“Telepsychiatry is becoming standard. Most clinics are moving to the hybrid universe now by having a telemedicine component and also seeing patients in person. Even places like emergency rooms and psychiatrists who do consults on medical floors are using telepsychiatry as an option,” he added.

Study funding was provided by Alkermes. Dr. Velligan has reported financial relationships with Alkermes, Otsuka, Janssen, and Lyndra. Dr. Colon-Rivera has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

Sparring among professional mixed martial arts (MMA) practitioners may have both positive and negative effects on the brain, early research suggests.

Investigators found sparring, defined as strategically hitting opponents with kicks, punches, and other strikes during practice sessions, is linked to increased white matter hyperintensities in the brain, pointing to possible vascular damage from repeated head trauma. However, the study results also show sparring was associated with a larger bilateral caudate which, in theory, is neuroprotective.

“From our preliminary study, sparring practice in MMA fighters may have a ‘double-edged sword’ effect on the brain,” study investigator Aaron Esagoff, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Growing popularity

MMA is a full-contact combat sport that has become increasingly popular over the past 15 years. It combines techniques from boxing, wrestling, karate, judo, and jujitsu.

To prepare for fights, MMA practitioners incorporate sparring and grappling, which use techniques such as chokes and locks to submit an opponent. Head protection is sometimes incorporated during practice, but is not the norm during a fight, said Mr. Esagoff.

The study investigated sparring during practice rather than fights because, he said, MMA competitors only fight a few times a year but spend hundreds of hours training. “So the health effects of training are going to be really important,” he said.

As with other combat sports, MMA involves hits to the head. Previous research has shown repetitive head trauma can lead to neurodegenerative diseases, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Esagoff noted.

Previous studies have also linked more professional fights and years of fighting to a decrease in brain volume among MMA fighters, he added.

The new analysis was conducted as part of the Professional Fighters Brain Health Study, a longitudinal cohort study of MMA professional fighters. It included 92 fighters with data available on MRI and habits regarding practicing. The mean age of the participants was 30 years, 62% were White, and 85% were men.

The study examined sparring but did not include grappling because of “several challenges” with the current data analysis, Mr. Esagoff said. Researchers adjusted for age, sex, education, race, number of fights, total intracranial volume, and type of MRI scanner used.
 

A ‘highly strategic’ sport

Results showed a strong association between the number of sparring rounds per week and increased white matter hyperintensity volume (mcL) on MRI (P = .039).

This suggests white matter damage, possibly a result of direct neuronal injury, vascular damage, or immune modulation, said Mr. Esagoff. However, another mechanism may be involved, he added.

There was also a significant association between sparring and increased size of the caudate nucleus, an area of the brain involved in movement, learning, and memory (P = .014 for right caudate volume, P = .012 for left caudate volume).

There are some theories that might explain this finding, said Mr. Esagoff. For example, individuals who spar more may get better at avoiding impacts and injuries during a fight, which might in turn affect the size of the caudate.

The controlled movements and techniques used during sparring could also affect the caudate. “Some research has shown that behavior, learning, and/or exercise may increase the size of certain brain regions,” Mr. Esagoff said.

He noted the “highly strategic” nature of combat sports – and used the example of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. That sport “is known as human chess because it takes a thoughtful approach to defeat a larger opponent with base, leverage, and technique,” he said.

However, Mr. Esagoff stressed that while it is possible movements involved in MMA increase caudate size, this is just a theory at this point.

A study limitation was that fighters volunteered to participate and may not represent all fighters. As well, the study was cross-sectional and looked at only one point in time, so it cannot infer causation.

Overall, the new findings should help inform fighters, governing bodies, and the public about the potential risks and benefits of different styles of MMA fighting and practice, although more research is needed, said Mr. Esagoff.

He and his team now plan to conduct a longer-term study and investigate effects of grappling on brain structure and function in addition to sparring.
 

Jury still out

Commenting on the study, Howard Liu, MD, chair of the University of Nebraska Medical Center department of psychiatry and incoming chair of the APA’s Council on Communications, said the jury “is clearly still out” when it comes to the investigation of brain impacts.

“We don’t know quite what these changes fully correlate to,” said Dr. Liu, who moderated a press briefing highlighting the study.

He underlined the importance of protecting athletes vulnerable to head trauma, be they professionals or those involved at the youth sports level.

Dr. Liu also noted the “extreme popularity” and rapid growth of MMA around the world, which he said provides an opportunity for researchers to study these professional fighters.

“This is a unique population that signed up in the midst of hundreds of hours of sparring to advance neuroscience, and that’s quite amazing,” he said.

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

Sparring among professional mixed martial arts (MMA) practitioners may have both positive and negative effects on the brain, early research suggests.

Investigators found sparring, defined as strategically hitting opponents with kicks, punches, and other strikes during practice sessions, is linked to increased white matter hyperintensities in the brain, pointing to possible vascular damage from repeated head trauma. However, the study results also show sparring was associated with a larger bilateral caudate which, in theory, is neuroprotective.

“From our preliminary study, sparring practice in MMA fighters may have a ‘double-edged sword’ effect on the brain,” study investigator Aaron Esagoff, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Growing popularity

MMA is a full-contact combat sport that has become increasingly popular over the past 15 years. It combines techniques from boxing, wrestling, karate, judo, and jujitsu.

To prepare for fights, MMA practitioners incorporate sparring and grappling, which use techniques such as chokes and locks to submit an opponent. Head protection is sometimes incorporated during practice, but is not the norm during a fight, said Mr. Esagoff.

The study investigated sparring during practice rather than fights because, he said, MMA competitors only fight a few times a year but spend hundreds of hours training. “So the health effects of training are going to be really important,” he said.

As with other combat sports, MMA involves hits to the head. Previous research has shown repetitive head trauma can lead to neurodegenerative diseases, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Esagoff noted.

Previous studies have also linked more professional fights and years of fighting to a decrease in brain volume among MMA fighters, he added.

The new analysis was conducted as part of the Professional Fighters Brain Health Study, a longitudinal cohort study of MMA professional fighters. It included 92 fighters with data available on MRI and habits regarding practicing. The mean age of the participants was 30 years, 62% were White, and 85% were men.

The study examined sparring but did not include grappling because of “several challenges” with the current data analysis, Mr. Esagoff said. Researchers adjusted for age, sex, education, race, number of fights, total intracranial volume, and type of MRI scanner used.
 

A ‘highly strategic’ sport

Results showed a strong association between the number of sparring rounds per week and increased white matter hyperintensity volume (mcL) on MRI (P = .039).

This suggests white matter damage, possibly a result of direct neuronal injury, vascular damage, or immune modulation, said Mr. Esagoff. However, another mechanism may be involved, he added.

There was also a significant association between sparring and increased size of the caudate nucleus, an area of the brain involved in movement, learning, and memory (P = .014 for right caudate volume, P = .012 for left caudate volume).

There are some theories that might explain this finding, said Mr. Esagoff. For example, individuals who spar more may get better at avoiding impacts and injuries during a fight, which might in turn affect the size of the caudate.

The controlled movements and techniques used during sparring could also affect the caudate. “Some research has shown that behavior, learning, and/or exercise may increase the size of certain brain regions,” Mr. Esagoff said.

He noted the “highly strategic” nature of combat sports – and used the example of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. That sport “is known as human chess because it takes a thoughtful approach to defeat a larger opponent with base, leverage, and technique,” he said.

However, Mr. Esagoff stressed that while it is possible movements involved in MMA increase caudate size, this is just a theory at this point.

A study limitation was that fighters volunteered to participate and may not represent all fighters. As well, the study was cross-sectional and looked at only one point in time, so it cannot infer causation.

Overall, the new findings should help inform fighters, governing bodies, and the public about the potential risks and benefits of different styles of MMA fighting and practice, although more research is needed, said Mr. Esagoff.

He and his team now plan to conduct a longer-term study and investigate effects of grappling on brain structure and function in addition to sparring.
 

Jury still out

Commenting on the study, Howard Liu, MD, chair of the University of Nebraska Medical Center department of psychiatry and incoming chair of the APA’s Council on Communications, said the jury “is clearly still out” when it comes to the investigation of brain impacts.

“We don’t know quite what these changes fully correlate to,” said Dr. Liu, who moderated a press briefing highlighting the study.

He underlined the importance of protecting athletes vulnerable to head trauma, be they professionals or those involved at the youth sports level.

Dr. Liu also noted the “extreme popularity” and rapid growth of MMA around the world, which he said provides an opportunity for researchers to study these professional fighters.

“This is a unique population that signed up in the midst of hundreds of hours of sparring to advance neuroscience, and that’s quite amazing,” he said.

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

Sparring among professional mixed martial arts (MMA) practitioners may have both positive and negative effects on the brain, early research suggests.

Investigators found sparring, defined as strategically hitting opponents with kicks, punches, and other strikes during practice sessions, is linked to increased white matter hyperintensities in the brain, pointing to possible vascular damage from repeated head trauma. However, the study results also show sparring was associated with a larger bilateral caudate which, in theory, is neuroprotective.

“From our preliminary study, sparring practice in MMA fighters may have a ‘double-edged sword’ effect on the brain,” study investigator Aaron Esagoff, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Growing popularity

MMA is a full-contact combat sport that has become increasingly popular over the past 15 years. It combines techniques from boxing, wrestling, karate, judo, and jujitsu.

To prepare for fights, MMA practitioners incorporate sparring and grappling, which use techniques such as chokes and locks to submit an opponent. Head protection is sometimes incorporated during practice, but is not the norm during a fight, said Mr. Esagoff.

The study investigated sparring during practice rather than fights because, he said, MMA competitors only fight a few times a year but spend hundreds of hours training. “So the health effects of training are going to be really important,” he said.

As with other combat sports, MMA involves hits to the head. Previous research has shown repetitive head trauma can lead to neurodegenerative diseases, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Esagoff noted.

Previous studies have also linked more professional fights and years of fighting to a decrease in brain volume among MMA fighters, he added.

The new analysis was conducted as part of the Professional Fighters Brain Health Study, a longitudinal cohort study of MMA professional fighters. It included 92 fighters with data available on MRI and habits regarding practicing. The mean age of the participants was 30 years, 62% were White, and 85% were men.

The study examined sparring but did not include grappling because of “several challenges” with the current data analysis, Mr. Esagoff said. Researchers adjusted for age, sex, education, race, number of fights, total intracranial volume, and type of MRI scanner used.
 

A ‘highly strategic’ sport

Results showed a strong association between the number of sparring rounds per week and increased white matter hyperintensity volume (mcL) on MRI (P = .039).

This suggests white matter damage, possibly a result of direct neuronal injury, vascular damage, or immune modulation, said Mr. Esagoff. However, another mechanism may be involved, he added.

There was also a significant association between sparring and increased size of the caudate nucleus, an area of the brain involved in movement, learning, and memory (P = .014 for right caudate volume, P = .012 for left caudate volume).

There are some theories that might explain this finding, said Mr. Esagoff. For example, individuals who spar more may get better at avoiding impacts and injuries during a fight, which might in turn affect the size of the caudate.

The controlled movements and techniques used during sparring could also affect the caudate. “Some research has shown that behavior, learning, and/or exercise may increase the size of certain brain regions,” Mr. Esagoff said.

He noted the “highly strategic” nature of combat sports – and used the example of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. That sport “is known as human chess because it takes a thoughtful approach to defeat a larger opponent with base, leverage, and technique,” he said.

However, Mr. Esagoff stressed that while it is possible movements involved in MMA increase caudate size, this is just a theory at this point.

A study limitation was that fighters volunteered to participate and may not represent all fighters. As well, the study was cross-sectional and looked at only one point in time, so it cannot infer causation.

Overall, the new findings should help inform fighters, governing bodies, and the public about the potential risks and benefits of different styles of MMA fighting and practice, although more research is needed, said Mr. Esagoff.

He and his team now plan to conduct a longer-term study and investigate effects of grappling on brain structure and function in addition to sparring.
 

Jury still out

Commenting on the study, Howard Liu, MD, chair of the University of Nebraska Medical Center department of psychiatry and incoming chair of the APA’s Council on Communications, said the jury “is clearly still out” when it comes to the investigation of brain impacts.

“We don’t know quite what these changes fully correlate to,” said Dr. Liu, who moderated a press briefing highlighting the study.

He underlined the importance of protecting athletes vulnerable to head trauma, be they professionals or those involved at the youth sports level.

Dr. Liu also noted the “extreme popularity” and rapid growth of MMA around the world, which he said provides an opportunity for researchers to study these professional fighters.

“This is a unique population that signed up in the midst of hundreds of hours of sparring to advance neuroscience, and that’s quite amazing,” he said.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

The Safer Alternatives for Emergency Response (SAFER) program provides a safe supply of substances to prevent drug overdose deaths, according to a new report.

The program has been operating in Vancouver, British Columbia, since April 2021. So far, the program has enrolled 58 participants who have reported benefits from having new options when other forms of treatment or harm reduction didn’t work. In addition, doctors who work with the program have reported increased medication adherence among the participants, as well as better chronic disease management.

Similar safe supply programs are being implemented or considered in other places across Canada. Since 2019, Health Canada has funded 18 safe supply pilot programs.

“When we look at the number of overdose deaths, it should be zero. These are preventable deaths,” author Christy Sutherland, MD, medical director at the PHS Community Services Society, Vancouver, which operates the SAFER program, told this news organization.

PHS Community Services Society

Safe supply programs

Between January 2016 and June 2021, more than 24,000 people died from opioid toxicity in Canada, according to the authors. A key driver of the ongoing public health crisis has been the introduction of illicit fentanyl and other dangerous substances into the unregulated drug supply.

In recent years, several harm-reduction options and substance use disorder treatment programs have been introduced in Canada to stem overdose deaths. However, they haven’t been sufficient, and the number of deaths continues to rise.

“In 2010, methadone worked, but now even high doses don’t keep people out of withdrawal due to the infiltration of fentanyl,” Dr. Sutherland said. “It’s clinically not working anymore. People are now going through benzodiazepine withdrawal and opiate withdrawal at the same time.”

The changes have led doctors to call for programs that provide legal and regulated sources of psychoactive substances, also known as “safe supply” programs. In particular, low-barrier and flexible options are necessary to meet the needs of various people in the community.

In Vancouver, the SAFER program provides medications that are prescribed off-label as substitutes to the illicit drug supply. A multidisciplinary team oversees the program, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and people who have experience living with substance use.

The program’s approach is akin to the use of medications as treatments for substance use disorder, such as opioid-agonist therapy. However, instead of promoting abstinence, the goal of SAFER is to prevent overdose deaths and other consequences by decreasing reliance on the unregulated drug market.

Enrolled participants can access medications, including opioids such as hydromorphone and fentanyl, as a substitute for the unregulated substances that they consume. A notable aspect of SAFER is the offer of fentanyl – with a known potency and without dangerous adulterants found in the local drug supply.
 

Promoting participant autonomy

Given the increasing rate of overdose deaths involving stimulants in Canada, the program also offers prescribed psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine.

The program focuses on harm reduction and promoting participant autonomy. SAFER doesn’t have a predetermined schedule for medication access, which allows participants to return as they need.

“Creating this program has required patience to change our practices,” Dr. Sutherland said. “As you learn more and do more, you’re always growing because you care about your patients and want to help them, especially vulnerable people with a high risk for death.”

The SAFER program is integrated into health care and social services, and participants have access to on-site primary care from clinicians trained in addiction medicine. The program is located alongside a low-barrier prevention site, where supplies such as syringes, take-home naloxone kits, and drug-checking services are available.

The SAFER program will undergo a scientific evaluation, led by two of the co-authors, which will include about 200 participants. During a 2-year period, the evaluation will assess whether the program reduces the risk for overdose deaths and supports access to primary care, harm reduction, and substance use disorder treatment. In addition, the researchers will analyze other key outcomes, such as fatal versus nonfatal overdoses, medication adherence, and the qualitative lived experience of participants.
 

The end of prohibition?

“We’ve had the same challenges with people buying illegal drugs on the street for almost 30 years, but about 5 years ago, that all changed when fentanyl became a prominent drug, and overdose deaths skyrocketed,” Mark Tyndall, MD, a public health professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.

University of British Columbia

Dr. Tyndall is also executive director of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and executive director of MySafe Society, a safe supply program in Canada for those with opioid addiction. He is not involved in the SAFER program.

SAFER and MySafe Society are positioned as low-barrier programs, he said, meaning that the public health response is primarily focused on preventing deaths and helping people to get access to medication that won’t kill them. The idea is to meet people where they are today.

However, these programs still face major barriers, such as limitations from federal regulators and stigmas around illicit drugs and harm-reduction programs.

“These beliefs are entrenched, and it takes a long time to help people understand that prohibition means that dangerous drugs are on the street,” he said. “I don’t think way more people are using than 10 years ago, but there was a supply of heroin that was stable in potency back then, and people weren’t dying.”

Ultimately, Dr. Tyndall said, drug policy experts would like to create a regulated supply, similar to the supply of cannabis. The political and regulatory process may take much longer to catch up, but he believes that it’s the most ethical way to reduce overdose deaths and the unregulated drug supply.

“The harshest critics of harm reduction often go to the liquor store every weekend,” he said. “It’s going to be a long process before people think this way, but having fentanyl and other dangerous drugs on the street has signaled the end stage of prohibition.”

The SAFER program is operated by PHS Community Services Society in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and funded through Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addiction Program. Dr. Tyndall reported no relevant disclosures.

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

The Safer Alternatives for Emergency Response (SAFER) program provides a safe supply of substances to prevent drug overdose deaths, according to a new report.

The program has been operating in Vancouver, British Columbia, since April 2021. So far, the program has enrolled 58 participants who have reported benefits from having new options when other forms of treatment or harm reduction didn’t work. In addition, doctors who work with the program have reported increased medication adherence among the participants, as well as better chronic disease management.

Similar safe supply programs are being implemented or considered in other places across Canada. Since 2019, Health Canada has funded 18 safe supply pilot programs.

“When we look at the number of overdose deaths, it should be zero. These are preventable deaths,” author Christy Sutherland, MD, medical director at the PHS Community Services Society, Vancouver, which operates the SAFER program, told this news organization.

PHS Community Services Society

Safe supply programs

Between January 2016 and June 2021, more than 24,000 people died from opioid toxicity in Canada, according to the authors. A key driver of the ongoing public health crisis has been the introduction of illicit fentanyl and other dangerous substances into the unregulated drug supply.

In recent years, several harm-reduction options and substance use disorder treatment programs have been introduced in Canada to stem overdose deaths. However, they haven’t been sufficient, and the number of deaths continues to rise.

“In 2010, methadone worked, but now even high doses don’t keep people out of withdrawal due to the infiltration of fentanyl,” Dr. Sutherland said. “It’s clinically not working anymore. People are now going through benzodiazepine withdrawal and opiate withdrawal at the same time.”

The changes have led doctors to call for programs that provide legal and regulated sources of psychoactive substances, also known as “safe supply” programs. In particular, low-barrier and flexible options are necessary to meet the needs of various people in the community.

In Vancouver, the SAFER program provides medications that are prescribed off-label as substitutes to the illicit drug supply. A multidisciplinary team oversees the program, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and people who have experience living with substance use.

The program’s approach is akin to the use of medications as treatments for substance use disorder, such as opioid-agonist therapy. However, instead of promoting abstinence, the goal of SAFER is to prevent overdose deaths and other consequences by decreasing reliance on the unregulated drug market.

Enrolled participants can access medications, including opioids such as hydromorphone and fentanyl, as a substitute for the unregulated substances that they consume. A notable aspect of SAFER is the offer of fentanyl – with a known potency and without dangerous adulterants found in the local drug supply.
 

Promoting participant autonomy

Given the increasing rate of overdose deaths involving stimulants in Canada, the program also offers prescribed psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine.

The program focuses on harm reduction and promoting participant autonomy. SAFER doesn’t have a predetermined schedule for medication access, which allows participants to return as they need.

“Creating this program has required patience to change our practices,” Dr. Sutherland said. “As you learn more and do more, you’re always growing because you care about your patients and want to help them, especially vulnerable people with a high risk for death.”

The SAFER program is integrated into health care and social services, and participants have access to on-site primary care from clinicians trained in addiction medicine. The program is located alongside a low-barrier prevention site, where supplies such as syringes, take-home naloxone kits, and drug-checking services are available.

The SAFER program will undergo a scientific evaluation, led by two of the co-authors, which will include about 200 participants. During a 2-year period, the evaluation will assess whether the program reduces the risk for overdose deaths and supports access to primary care, harm reduction, and substance use disorder treatment. In addition, the researchers will analyze other key outcomes, such as fatal versus nonfatal overdoses, medication adherence, and the qualitative lived experience of participants.
 

The end of prohibition?

“We’ve had the same challenges with people buying illegal drugs on the street for almost 30 years, but about 5 years ago, that all changed when fentanyl became a prominent drug, and overdose deaths skyrocketed,” Mark Tyndall, MD, a public health professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.

University of British Columbia

Dr. Tyndall is also executive director of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and executive director of MySafe Society, a safe supply program in Canada for those with opioid addiction. He is not involved in the SAFER program.

SAFER and MySafe Society are positioned as low-barrier programs, he said, meaning that the public health response is primarily focused on preventing deaths and helping people to get access to medication that won’t kill them. The idea is to meet people where they are today.

However, these programs still face major barriers, such as limitations from federal regulators and stigmas around illicit drugs and harm-reduction programs.

“These beliefs are entrenched, and it takes a long time to help people understand that prohibition means that dangerous drugs are on the street,” he said. “I don’t think way more people are using than 10 years ago, but there was a supply of heroin that was stable in potency back then, and people weren’t dying.”

Ultimately, Dr. Tyndall said, drug policy experts would like to create a regulated supply, similar to the supply of cannabis. The political and regulatory process may take much longer to catch up, but he believes that it’s the most ethical way to reduce overdose deaths and the unregulated drug supply.

“The harshest critics of harm reduction often go to the liquor store every weekend,” he said. “It’s going to be a long process before people think this way, but having fentanyl and other dangerous drugs on the street has signaled the end stage of prohibition.”

The SAFER program is operated by PHS Community Services Society in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and funded through Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addiction Program. Dr. Tyndall reported no relevant disclosures.

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

The Safer Alternatives for Emergency Response (SAFER) program provides a safe supply of substances to prevent drug overdose deaths, according to a new report.

The program has been operating in Vancouver, British Columbia, since April 2021. So far, the program has enrolled 58 participants who have reported benefits from having new options when other forms of treatment or harm reduction didn’t work. In addition, doctors who work with the program have reported increased medication adherence among the participants, as well as better chronic disease management.

Similar safe supply programs are being implemented or considered in other places across Canada. Since 2019, Health Canada has funded 18 safe supply pilot programs.

“When we look at the number of overdose deaths, it should be zero. These are preventable deaths,” author Christy Sutherland, MD, medical director at the PHS Community Services Society, Vancouver, which operates the SAFER program, told this news organization.

PHS Community Services Society

Safe supply programs

Between January 2016 and June 2021, more than 24,000 people died from opioid toxicity in Canada, according to the authors. A key driver of the ongoing public health crisis has been the introduction of illicit fentanyl and other dangerous substances into the unregulated drug supply.

In recent years, several harm-reduction options and substance use disorder treatment programs have been introduced in Canada to stem overdose deaths. However, they haven’t been sufficient, and the number of deaths continues to rise.

“In 2010, methadone worked, but now even high doses don’t keep people out of withdrawal due to the infiltration of fentanyl,” Dr. Sutherland said. “It’s clinically not working anymore. People are now going through benzodiazepine withdrawal and opiate withdrawal at the same time.”

The changes have led doctors to call for programs that provide legal and regulated sources of psychoactive substances, also known as “safe supply” programs. In particular, low-barrier and flexible options are necessary to meet the needs of various people in the community.

In Vancouver, the SAFER program provides medications that are prescribed off-label as substitutes to the illicit drug supply. A multidisciplinary team oversees the program, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and people who have experience living with substance use.

The program’s approach is akin to the use of medications as treatments for substance use disorder, such as opioid-agonist therapy. However, instead of promoting abstinence, the goal of SAFER is to prevent overdose deaths and other consequences by decreasing reliance on the unregulated drug market.

Enrolled participants can access medications, including opioids such as hydromorphone and fentanyl, as a substitute for the unregulated substances that they consume. A notable aspect of SAFER is the offer of fentanyl – with a known potency and without dangerous adulterants found in the local drug supply.
 

Promoting participant autonomy

Given the increasing rate of overdose deaths involving stimulants in Canada, the program also offers prescribed psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine.

The program focuses on harm reduction and promoting participant autonomy. SAFER doesn’t have a predetermined schedule for medication access, which allows participants to return as they need.

“Creating this program has required patience to change our practices,” Dr. Sutherland said. “As you learn more and do more, you’re always growing because you care about your patients and want to help them, especially vulnerable people with a high risk for death.”

The SAFER program is integrated into health care and social services, and participants have access to on-site primary care from clinicians trained in addiction medicine. The program is located alongside a low-barrier prevention site, where supplies such as syringes, take-home naloxone kits, and drug-checking services are available.

The SAFER program will undergo a scientific evaluation, led by two of the co-authors, which will include about 200 participants. During a 2-year period, the evaluation will assess whether the program reduces the risk for overdose deaths and supports access to primary care, harm reduction, and substance use disorder treatment. In addition, the researchers will analyze other key outcomes, such as fatal versus nonfatal overdoses, medication adherence, and the qualitative lived experience of participants.
 

The end of prohibition?

“We’ve had the same challenges with people buying illegal drugs on the street for almost 30 years, but about 5 years ago, that all changed when fentanyl became a prominent drug, and overdose deaths skyrocketed,” Mark Tyndall, MD, a public health professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.

University of British Columbia

Dr. Tyndall is also executive director of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and executive director of MySafe Society, a safe supply program in Canada for those with opioid addiction. He is not involved in the SAFER program.

SAFER and MySafe Society are positioned as low-barrier programs, he said, meaning that the public health response is primarily focused on preventing deaths and helping people to get access to medication that won’t kill them. The idea is to meet people where they are today.

However, these programs still face major barriers, such as limitations from federal regulators and stigmas around illicit drugs and harm-reduction programs.

“These beliefs are entrenched, and it takes a long time to help people understand that prohibition means that dangerous drugs are on the street,” he said. “I don’t think way more people are using than 10 years ago, but there was a supply of heroin that was stable in potency back then, and people weren’t dying.”

Ultimately, Dr. Tyndall said, drug policy experts would like to create a regulated supply, similar to the supply of cannabis. The political and regulatory process may take much longer to catch up, but he believes that it’s the most ethical way to reduce overdose deaths and the unregulated drug supply.

“The harshest critics of harm reduction often go to the liquor store every weekend,” he said. “It’s going to be a long process before people think this way, but having fentanyl and other dangerous drugs on the street has signaled the end stage of prohibition.”

The SAFER program is operated by PHS Community Services Society in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and funded through Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addiction Program. Dr. Tyndall reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Cariprazine (Vraylar) is a safe and effective adjunctive treatment for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have an inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy, new results from a phase 3 study show.

Already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat adults with schizophrenia and manic, mixed, or depressive episodes of bipolar I disorder, cariprazine is under investigation as an add-on therapy for MDD.

“Even patients who appear to be nonresponsive to standard antidepressant drugs have a very good chance of responding” to cariprazine, lead study author Gary Sachs, MD, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

He noted that cariprazine, which is a partial agonist at D2 and D3, as well as 5-HT1A, “is an entirely different class” of drugs.

“It’s worth understanding how to use drugs like cariprazine and expanding our nomenclature; instead of referring to these drugs as atypical antipsychotics, perhaps referring to them as atypical antidepressants makes more sense,” Dr. Sachs said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

More options critical

MDD is among the most common psychiatric disorders in the United States. In 2020, an estimated 21 million adults had at least one major depressive episode.

Previous research has shown almost half of patients with MDD do not experience satisfactory results from their current treatment regimen. Therefore, research on more options for patients is critical, Dr. Sachs said.

Results from a previously published placebo-controlled study showed adjunctive treatment with cariprazine at 2-mg to 4.5-mg per day doses was more effective than placebo in improving depressive symptoms in adults with MDD.

The new analysis included patients with MDD and an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), or tricyclic antidepressants. They were recruited from 116 centers in the United States and Europe.

Dr. Sachs noted that a nonresponse to an adequate dose of an antidepressant typically means having less than a 50% improvement over 6 weeks or more.

Researchers randomly assigned the patients to oral cariprazine 1.5 mg/day, cariprazine 3 mg/day, or placebo. All continued to take their antidepressant monotherapy.

The analysis included 757 mostly White participants (mean age, 44.8 years; 73.4% women). All had experienced depression for a “huge” part of their life (average, about 14 years), “not to mention their adult life,” said Dr. Sachs.

In addition, at the start of the study, the participants had been depressed for almost 8 months on average.

The primary endpoint was change at week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The mean baseline MADRS total score was 32.5.

Less is sometimes more

Results showed a significantly greater mean reduction in MADRS total score for cariprazine 1.5 mg/day vs. placebo at week 6 (P = .005). Significant differences from placebo were observed as early as week 2 and were maintained at week 4, as well as week 6.

“I can say with great confidence that the 1.5-mg dose met all the standards for efficacy,” Dr. Sachs said.

However, this was not the case for the 3-mg/day dose. Although there was a numerically greater reduction in MADRS total score for this dosage of the drug vs. placebo at week 6, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07).

At week 6, more patients taking the active drug at 1.5 mg/day than placebo responded to treatment, defined as 50% or greater reduction in MADRS total score (44% vs. 34.9%, respectively; P < .05).

Researchers also assessed scores on the Clinical Global Impressions, finding significantly greater score improvement for both the 1.5-mg/day (P = .0026) and 3-mg/day (P =.0076) groups vs. the placebo group.

Improvement at week 6 in mean total score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-17) reached nominal significance for cariprazine 1.5 mg/day vs. placebo – but not for 3 mg/day.

The results of this “high-quality” double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel group study provide “what I regard as proven efficacy,” Dr. Sachs said.

He added that the investigational drug was also relatively safe. “The vast majority of patients tolerated it quite well,” he stressed. In addition, the drop-out rate because of adverse events was “quite low overall.”

The only adverse events (AEs) that occurred with the active treatment at a frequency of 5% or more and double that of placebo were akathisia and nausea. Changes in weight were relatively small, at less than 1 kg, in all treatment groups.

There was one serious AE in each active drug group, one of which was a kidney infection. There were two serious AEs reported in the placebo group, including one patient with multiple sclerosis. There were no deaths.

Dr. Sachs noted an advantage of cariprazine is its long half-life, which makes it more user-friendly because “it forgives you if you miss a dose or two.”

Drug manufacturer AbbVie’s supplemental New Drug Application for cariprazine is currently under review by the FDA for expanded use as adjunctive treatment of MDD. A decision by the agency is expected by the end of this year.

Another potential treatment option

Commenting on the findings, James Murrough, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and of neuroscience and director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said he welcomes research into additional treatments for MDD.

“Each medicine in a particular class has a unique pharmacology, so a larger number of medication options may help the clinician find a good match for a particular patient,” said Dr. Murrough, who was not involved with the research.

He noted cariprazine is “somewhat unique” among the dopamine modulators in “preferring interactions with the D3 receptor, one of many types of dopamine receptors.”

Although the study results showed cariprazine was effective in MDD, it “does not entirely break new ground” because previous research has already established the drug’s efficacy as adjunctive therapy for patients with depression not responding to a standard antidepressant, said Dr. Murrough.

He also noted that the lower dose, but not the higher dose, of the drug was found to be significantly beneficial for patients, compared with placebo.

“This is a good reminder that higher doses of a medication are not always better,” Dr. Murrough said.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Sachs is a full-time employee of Signant Health, which conducted the training and quality control for this study. Dr. Murrough has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cariprazine (Vraylar) is a safe and effective adjunctive treatment for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have an inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy, new results from a phase 3 study show.

Already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat adults with schizophrenia and manic, mixed, or depressive episodes of bipolar I disorder, cariprazine is under investigation as an add-on therapy for MDD.

“Even patients who appear to be nonresponsive to standard antidepressant drugs have a very good chance of responding” to cariprazine, lead study author Gary Sachs, MD, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

He noted that cariprazine, which is a partial agonist at D2 and D3, as well as 5-HT1A, “is an entirely different class” of drugs.

“It’s worth understanding how to use drugs like cariprazine and expanding our nomenclature; instead of referring to these drugs as atypical antipsychotics, perhaps referring to them as atypical antidepressants makes more sense,” Dr. Sachs said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

More options critical

MDD is among the most common psychiatric disorders in the United States. In 2020, an estimated 21 million adults had at least one major depressive episode.

Previous research has shown almost half of patients with MDD do not experience satisfactory results from their current treatment regimen. Therefore, research on more options for patients is critical, Dr. Sachs said.

Results from a previously published placebo-controlled study showed adjunctive treatment with cariprazine at 2-mg to 4.5-mg per day doses was more effective than placebo in improving depressive symptoms in adults with MDD.

The new analysis included patients with MDD and an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), or tricyclic antidepressants. They were recruited from 116 centers in the United States and Europe.

Dr. Sachs noted that a nonresponse to an adequate dose of an antidepressant typically means having less than a 50% improvement over 6 weeks or more.

Researchers randomly assigned the patients to oral cariprazine 1.5 mg/day, cariprazine 3 mg/day, or placebo. All continued to take their antidepressant monotherapy.

The analysis included 757 mostly White participants (mean age, 44.8 years; 73.4% women). All had experienced depression for a “huge” part of their life (average, about 14 years), “not to mention their adult life,” said Dr. Sachs.

In addition, at the start of the study, the participants had been depressed for almost 8 months on average.

The primary endpoint was change at week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The mean baseline MADRS total score was 32.5.

Less is sometimes more

Results showed a significantly greater mean reduction in MADRS total score for cariprazine 1.5 mg/day vs. placebo at week 6 (P = .005). Significant differences from placebo were observed as early as week 2 and were maintained at week 4, as well as week 6.

“I can say with great confidence that the 1.5-mg dose met all the standards for efficacy,” Dr. Sachs said.

However, this was not the case for the 3-mg/day dose. Although there was a numerically greater reduction in MADRS total score for this dosage of the drug vs. placebo at week 6, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07).

At week 6, more patients taking the active drug at 1.5 mg/day than placebo responded to treatment, defined as 50% or greater reduction in MADRS total score (44% vs. 34.9%, respectively; P < .05).

Researchers also assessed scores on the Clinical Global Impressions, finding significantly greater score improvement for both the 1.5-mg/day (P = .0026) and 3-mg/day (P =.0076) groups vs. the placebo group.

Improvement at week 6 in mean total score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-17) reached nominal significance for cariprazine 1.5 mg/day vs. placebo – but not for 3 mg/day.

The results of this “high-quality” double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel group study provide “what I regard as proven efficacy,” Dr. Sachs said.

He added that the investigational drug was also relatively safe. “The vast majority of patients tolerated it quite well,” he stressed. In addition, the drop-out rate because of adverse events was “quite low overall.”

The only adverse events (AEs) that occurred with the active treatment at a frequency of 5% or more and double that of placebo were akathisia and nausea. Changes in weight were relatively small, at less than 1 kg, in all treatment groups.

There was one serious AE in each active drug group, one of which was a kidney infection. There were two serious AEs reported in the placebo group, including one patient with multiple sclerosis. There were no deaths.

Dr. Sachs noted an advantage of cariprazine is its long half-life, which makes it more user-friendly because “it forgives you if you miss a dose or two.”

Drug manufacturer AbbVie’s supplemental New Drug Application for cariprazine is currently under review by the FDA for expanded use as adjunctive treatment of MDD. A decision by the agency is expected by the end of this year.

Another potential treatment option

Commenting on the findings, James Murrough, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and of neuroscience and director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said he welcomes research into additional treatments for MDD.

“Each medicine in a particular class has a unique pharmacology, so a larger number of medication options may help the clinician find a good match for a particular patient,” said Dr. Murrough, who was not involved with the research.

He noted cariprazine is “somewhat unique” among the dopamine modulators in “preferring interactions with the D3 receptor, one of many types of dopamine receptors.”

Although the study results showed cariprazine was effective in MDD, it “does not entirely break new ground” because previous research has already established the drug’s efficacy as adjunctive therapy for patients with depression not responding to a standard antidepressant, said Dr. Murrough.

He also noted that the lower dose, but not the higher dose, of the drug was found to be significantly beneficial for patients, compared with placebo.

“This is a good reminder that higher doses of a medication are not always better,” Dr. Murrough said.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Sachs is a full-time employee of Signant Health, which conducted the training and quality control for this study. Dr. Murrough has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cariprazine (Vraylar) is a safe and effective adjunctive treatment for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have an inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy, new results from a phase 3 study show.

Already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat adults with schizophrenia and manic, mixed, or depressive episodes of bipolar I disorder, cariprazine is under investigation as an add-on therapy for MDD.

“Even patients who appear to be nonresponsive to standard antidepressant drugs have a very good chance of responding” to cariprazine, lead study author Gary Sachs, MD, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

He noted that cariprazine, which is a partial agonist at D2 and D3, as well as 5-HT1A, “is an entirely different class” of drugs.

“It’s worth understanding how to use drugs like cariprazine and expanding our nomenclature; instead of referring to these drugs as atypical antipsychotics, perhaps referring to them as atypical antidepressants makes more sense,” Dr. Sachs said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

More options critical

MDD is among the most common psychiatric disorders in the United States. In 2020, an estimated 21 million adults had at least one major depressive episode.

Previous research has shown almost half of patients with MDD do not experience satisfactory results from their current treatment regimen. Therefore, research on more options for patients is critical, Dr. Sachs said.

Results from a previously published placebo-controlled study showed adjunctive treatment with cariprazine at 2-mg to 4.5-mg per day doses was more effective than placebo in improving depressive symptoms in adults with MDD.

The new analysis included patients with MDD and an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), or tricyclic antidepressants. They were recruited from 116 centers in the United States and Europe.

Dr. Sachs noted that a nonresponse to an adequate dose of an antidepressant typically means having less than a 50% improvement over 6 weeks or more.

Researchers randomly assigned the patients to oral cariprazine 1.5 mg/day, cariprazine 3 mg/day, or placebo. All continued to take their antidepressant monotherapy.

The analysis included 757 mostly White participants (mean age, 44.8 years; 73.4% women). All had experienced depression for a “huge” part of their life (average, about 14 years), “not to mention their adult life,” said Dr. Sachs.

In addition, at the start of the study, the participants had been depressed for almost 8 months on average.

The primary endpoint was change at week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The mean baseline MADRS total score was 32.5.

Less is sometimes more

Results showed a significantly greater mean reduction in MADRS total score for cariprazine 1.5 mg/day vs. placebo at week 6 (P = .005). Significant differences from placebo were observed as early as week 2 and were maintained at week 4, as well as week 6.

“I can say with great confidence that the 1.5-mg dose met all the standards for efficacy,” Dr. Sachs said.

However, this was not the case for the 3-mg/day dose. Although there was a numerically greater reduction in MADRS total score for this dosage of the drug vs. placebo at week 6, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07).

At week 6, more patients taking the active drug at 1.5 mg/day than placebo responded to treatment, defined as 50% or greater reduction in MADRS total score (44% vs. 34.9%, respectively; P < .05).

Researchers also assessed scores on the Clinical Global Impressions, finding significantly greater score improvement for both the 1.5-mg/day (P = .0026) and 3-mg/day (P =.0076) groups vs. the placebo group.

Improvement at week 6 in mean total score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-17) reached nominal significance for cariprazine 1.5 mg/day vs. placebo – but not for 3 mg/day.

The results of this “high-quality” double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel group study provide “what I regard as proven efficacy,” Dr. Sachs said.

He added that the investigational drug was also relatively safe. “The vast majority of patients tolerated it quite well,” he stressed. In addition, the drop-out rate because of adverse events was “quite low overall.”

The only adverse events (AEs) that occurred with the active treatment at a frequency of 5% or more and double that of placebo were akathisia and nausea. Changes in weight were relatively small, at less than 1 kg, in all treatment groups.

There was one serious AE in each active drug group, one of which was a kidney infection. There were two serious AEs reported in the placebo group, including one patient with multiple sclerosis. There were no deaths.

Dr. Sachs noted an advantage of cariprazine is its long half-life, which makes it more user-friendly because “it forgives you if you miss a dose or two.”

Drug manufacturer AbbVie’s supplemental New Drug Application for cariprazine is currently under review by the FDA for expanded use as adjunctive treatment of MDD. A decision by the agency is expected by the end of this year.

Another potential treatment option

Commenting on the findings, James Murrough, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and of neuroscience and director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said he welcomes research into additional treatments for MDD.

“Each medicine in a particular class has a unique pharmacology, so a larger number of medication options may help the clinician find a good match for a particular patient,” said Dr. Murrough, who was not involved with the research.

He noted cariprazine is “somewhat unique” among the dopamine modulators in “preferring interactions with the D3 receptor, one of many types of dopamine receptors.”

Although the study results showed cariprazine was effective in MDD, it “does not entirely break new ground” because previous research has already established the drug’s efficacy as adjunctive therapy for patients with depression not responding to a standard antidepressant, said Dr. Murrough.

He also noted that the lower dose, but not the higher dose, of the drug was found to be significantly beneficial for patients, compared with placebo.

“This is a good reminder that higher doses of a medication are not always better,” Dr. Murrough said.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Sachs is a full-time employee of Signant Health, which conducted the training and quality control for this study. Dr. Murrough has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most COVID-19 long-haulers continue to have brain fog, fatigue, and compromised quality of life more than a year after the initial infection, results from the most extensive follow-up to date of a group of long COVID patients show.

Most patients continue to experience debilitating neurologic symptoms an average of 15 months from symptom onset, Igor Koralnik, MD, who oversees the Neuro COVID-19 Clinic at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said during a press briefing.

Surprisingly, in some cases, new symptoms appear that didn’t exist before, including variation of heart rate and blood pressure, and gastrointestinal symptoms, indicating there may be a late appearance in dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system in those patients, Dr. Koralnik said.

The study was published online in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

Evolving symptoms

The investigators evaluated the evolution of neurologic symptoms in 52 adults who had mild COVID-19 symptoms and were not admitted to the hospital.

Their mean age was 43 years, 73% were women and 77% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. These patients have now been followed for between 11 and 18 months since their initial infection.

Overall, between first and follow-up evaluations, there was no significant change in the frequency of most neurologic symptoms, including brain fog (81% vs. 71%), numbness/tingling (69% vs. 65%), headache (67% vs. 54%), dizziness (50% vs. 54%), blurred vision (34% vs. 44%), tinnitus (33% vs. 42%), and fatigue (87% vs. 81%).

The only neurologic symptoms that decreased over time were loss of taste (63% vs. 27%) and smell (58% vs. 21%).

Conversely, heart rate and blood pressure variation (35% vs. 56%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (27% vs. 48%; P = .04) increased at follow-up evaluations.

Patients reported subjective improvements in their recovery, cognitive function and fatigue, but quality of life measures remained lower than the average population of the United States.

There was a neutral effect of COVID vaccination on long COVID symptoms – it didn’t cure long COVID or make long COVID worse, which is a reason given by some long-haulers for not getting vaccinated, Dr. Koralnik told the briefing.

Therefore, “we continue to encourage our patients to get vaccinated and boosted according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation,” he said.
 

Escape from the ‘pit of despair’

To date, the Northwestern Medicine Neuro COVID-19 Clinic has treated nearly 1,400 COVID long-haulers from across the United States.

Emily Caffee, a physical therapist from Wheaton, Ill., is one of them.

Speaking at the briefing, the 36-year-old described her saga and roller coaster of recovering from long COVID in three acts: her initial infection, followed by a descent into a pit of physical and emotional despair, followed by her eventual escape from that pit more than two years later.

Following a fairly mild case of COVID, Ms. Caffee said worsening neurologic symptoms forced her to take medical leave from her very physical and cognitively demanding job. 

Ms. Caffee said she experienced crushing fatigue and brain fog, as well as rapid heart rate and blood pressure changes going from sitting to standing position.

She went from being a competitive athlete to someone who could barely get off the couch or empty the dishwasher.

With the ongoing help of her medical team, she slowly returned to daily activities and eventually to work on a limited basis.

Today, Ms. Caffee says she’s 90%-95% better but still she has some lingering symptoms and does not yet feel like her pre-COVID self.

It’s been a very slow climb out of the pit, Ms. Caffee said.

This study has no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Most COVID-19 long-haulers continue to have brain fog, fatigue, and compromised quality of life more than a year after the initial infection, results from the most extensive follow-up to date of a group of long COVID patients show.

Most patients continue to experience debilitating neurologic symptoms an average of 15 months from symptom onset, Igor Koralnik, MD, who oversees the Neuro COVID-19 Clinic at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said during a press briefing.

Surprisingly, in some cases, new symptoms appear that didn’t exist before, including variation of heart rate and blood pressure, and gastrointestinal symptoms, indicating there may be a late appearance in dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system in those patients, Dr. Koralnik said.

The study was published online in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

Evolving symptoms

The investigators evaluated the evolution of neurologic symptoms in 52 adults who had mild COVID-19 symptoms and were not admitted to the hospital.

Their mean age was 43 years, 73% were women and 77% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. These patients have now been followed for between 11 and 18 months since their initial infection.

Overall, between first and follow-up evaluations, there was no significant change in the frequency of most neurologic symptoms, including brain fog (81% vs. 71%), numbness/tingling (69% vs. 65%), headache (67% vs. 54%), dizziness (50% vs. 54%), blurred vision (34% vs. 44%), tinnitus (33% vs. 42%), and fatigue (87% vs. 81%).

The only neurologic symptoms that decreased over time were loss of taste (63% vs. 27%) and smell (58% vs. 21%).

Conversely, heart rate and blood pressure variation (35% vs. 56%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (27% vs. 48%; P = .04) increased at follow-up evaluations.

Patients reported subjective improvements in their recovery, cognitive function and fatigue, but quality of life measures remained lower than the average population of the United States.

There was a neutral effect of COVID vaccination on long COVID symptoms – it didn’t cure long COVID or make long COVID worse, which is a reason given by some long-haulers for not getting vaccinated, Dr. Koralnik told the briefing.

Therefore, “we continue to encourage our patients to get vaccinated and boosted according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation,” he said.
 

Escape from the ‘pit of despair’

To date, the Northwestern Medicine Neuro COVID-19 Clinic has treated nearly 1,400 COVID long-haulers from across the United States.

Emily Caffee, a physical therapist from Wheaton, Ill., is one of them.

Speaking at the briefing, the 36-year-old described her saga and roller coaster of recovering from long COVID in three acts: her initial infection, followed by a descent into a pit of physical and emotional despair, followed by her eventual escape from that pit more than two years later.

Following a fairly mild case of COVID, Ms. Caffee said worsening neurologic symptoms forced her to take medical leave from her very physical and cognitively demanding job. 

Ms. Caffee said she experienced crushing fatigue and brain fog, as well as rapid heart rate and blood pressure changes going from sitting to standing position.

She went from being a competitive athlete to someone who could barely get off the couch or empty the dishwasher.

With the ongoing help of her medical team, she slowly returned to daily activities and eventually to work on a limited basis.

Today, Ms. Caffee says she’s 90%-95% better but still she has some lingering symptoms and does not yet feel like her pre-COVID self.

It’s been a very slow climb out of the pit, Ms. Caffee said.

This study has no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Most COVID-19 long-haulers continue to have brain fog, fatigue, and compromised quality of life more than a year after the initial infection, results from the most extensive follow-up to date of a group of long COVID patients show.

Most patients continue to experience debilitating neurologic symptoms an average of 15 months from symptom onset, Igor Koralnik, MD, who oversees the Neuro COVID-19 Clinic at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said during a press briefing.

Surprisingly, in some cases, new symptoms appear that didn’t exist before, including variation of heart rate and blood pressure, and gastrointestinal symptoms, indicating there may be a late appearance in dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system in those patients, Dr. Koralnik said.

The study was published online in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

Evolving symptoms

The investigators evaluated the evolution of neurologic symptoms in 52 adults who had mild COVID-19 symptoms and were not admitted to the hospital.

Their mean age was 43 years, 73% were women and 77% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. These patients have now been followed for between 11 and 18 months since their initial infection.

Overall, between first and follow-up evaluations, there was no significant change in the frequency of most neurologic symptoms, including brain fog (81% vs. 71%), numbness/tingling (69% vs. 65%), headache (67% vs. 54%), dizziness (50% vs. 54%), blurred vision (34% vs. 44%), tinnitus (33% vs. 42%), and fatigue (87% vs. 81%).

The only neurologic symptoms that decreased over time were loss of taste (63% vs. 27%) and smell (58% vs. 21%).

Conversely, heart rate and blood pressure variation (35% vs. 56%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (27% vs. 48%; P = .04) increased at follow-up evaluations.

Patients reported subjective improvements in their recovery, cognitive function and fatigue, but quality of life measures remained lower than the average population of the United States.

There was a neutral effect of COVID vaccination on long COVID symptoms – it didn’t cure long COVID or make long COVID worse, which is a reason given by some long-haulers for not getting vaccinated, Dr. Koralnik told the briefing.

Therefore, “we continue to encourage our patients to get vaccinated and boosted according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation,” he said.
 

Escape from the ‘pit of despair’

To date, the Northwestern Medicine Neuro COVID-19 Clinic has treated nearly 1,400 COVID long-haulers from across the United States.

Emily Caffee, a physical therapist from Wheaton, Ill., is one of them.

Speaking at the briefing, the 36-year-old described her saga and roller coaster of recovering from long COVID in three acts: her initial infection, followed by a descent into a pit of physical and emotional despair, followed by her eventual escape from that pit more than two years later.

Following a fairly mild case of COVID, Ms. Caffee said worsening neurologic symptoms forced her to take medical leave from her very physical and cognitively demanding job. 

Ms. Caffee said she experienced crushing fatigue and brain fog, as well as rapid heart rate and blood pressure changes going from sitting to standing position.

She went from being a competitive athlete to someone who could barely get off the couch or empty the dishwasher.

With the ongoing help of her medical team, she slowly returned to daily activities and eventually to work on a limited basis.

Today, Ms. Caffee says she’s 90%-95% better but still she has some lingering symptoms and does not yet feel like her pre-COVID self.

It’s been a very slow climb out of the pit, Ms. Caffee said.

This study has no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Recent legislative sessions in state legislative houses across the country have yielded progress toward codifying optimal team practice (OTP) into state law. That’s according to Phil Bongiorno, BA, senior vice president of advocacy and government relations at the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA), who spoke at the group’s annual meeting.

OTP refers to the AAPA’s goal of improving patient access to care and lessening administrative obligations by eliminating the legal requirement that there be a specific relationship between a PA, physician, or any other health care provider. This would allow a PA to practice to the full extent of their education, training, and experience, Mr. Bongiorno said.

The second tenet of OTP is to persuade states to create a separate majority PA board to regulate PAs. An alternative to this would be for states to add PAs and physicians who work with PAs to their medical or healing arts boards, he said.

Third, in an OTP environment, each state would authorize PAs to be eligible for direct payment by all public and private insurers. “We have seen that development at the federal level, as far as Medicare is concerned,” Mr. Bongiorno said. “Now, we’re focusing on making that happen in the individual states as well.”

According to Mr. Bongiorno, this year’s state advocacy priorities are to pursue new legislation in additional states, even as efforts continue to persuade state legislatures to act on carryover bills from the previous legislative session.

Mr. Bongiorno briefly summarized what he called “OTP successes” from 2021:

• Federal government: Authorized direct payment to PAs under Medicare
• Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania: Added one or more PAs to their medical boards
• Florida, Utah: Approved direct payment to PAs
• Tennessee, Wisconsin: Created a separate PA review board
• Utah, Wisconsin: Removed the relationship/agreement requirement (Wisconsin now requires 10,000 hours of practice to remove the relationship requirement)

North Central region

In Colorado, House Bill 1095 (HB1095) would have removed requirements for a legal relationship between a PA and a physician. Initially that would have happened after 3,000 hours of practice, although changing that to 5,000 hours has been a compromise measure. PAs changing specialties must collaborate for 2,000 hours, now negotiated to 3,000 hours.

HB1095 ultimately was not successful last year or this year, said Erika Miller, director of state advocacy and outreach for the AAPA. “But we do see it as a success, because in the 2022 session, we managed to get it passed in committee by a 10-to-1 vote,” she said. “It then moved to the full house and was not successful there.”

Ms. Miller said that South Dakota Senate Bill 134 would have removed the requirement for a legal PA/physician relationship after 1,040 hours, which is the requirement for nurse practitioners. “South Dakota had introduced similar legislation the year before, but also like Colorado, they went from not getting out of committee last year to making it to the senate floor this time,” she said.

In Wisconsin, the new PA-affiliated credentialing board began on April 1. It gives PAs the authority to license, discipline, and write regulations, Ms. Miller said.
 

South Central region

Arizona Senate Bill 1367 included direct pay, removed the relationship tether with a physician, and made each PA fully responsible for the care they provide. “The bill passed out of committee successfully but did not make it to a vote due to unexpected struggles between the Arizona medical society and PA chapter,” said Shannon Morey, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA. “They are ready to go again next year.”

In Louisiana, Senate Bill 158 is a “strong” bill that addressed all the desired aspects of OTP, Ms. Morey said; “The legislation stands subject to call on the Senate floor, but it has been killed by the sponsor.”
 

Northeast region

Massachusetts Senate Bill 740 (S740) would remove the legal tether between PA and physician, said Carson Walker, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA. “The committee decided to extend its time in committee until June,” he said. “By next month, we expect that the committee will schedule a hearing that includes S740, and we fully plan on submitting testimony.”

In New York, Senate Bill 9233 (S9233) would remove physician supervision after 3,600 hours of practice.

“Just about 10 days ago, sponsors were able to have S9233 introduced, which is the most succinct and, I think, the most effective OTP bill I have ever seen,” Mr. Walker said.

“S9233 says that after 3,600 hours a PA can practice without the supervision of a physician, and that’s all. There’s not a lot of time left in this session, but we are hopeful that it lays the groundwork for success next year.”

New Hampshire Senate Bill 228 has passed the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature. It will allow direct payment, make PAs responsible for the care they provide, and shift the physician-PA relationship from supervision to collaboration, Mr. Walker said.
 

Southeast region

Stephanie Radix, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA, discussed North Carolina’s Senate Bill 345, which passed the Senate unanimously in 2021 and has been carried over to this year’s session. The bill defines team-based settings, eliminates the relationship tether, and establishes a supervised career entry interval of 4,000 clinical hours in the state.

The legislature is slated to adjourn June 30, Ms. Radix said: “We are very hopeful that we will get it across the finish line.”

In an interview, Mr. Bongiorno said that the AAPA’s overall advocacy progress is as expected.

“Optimal team practice is about allowing each practice to make that determination on how the team should work as a true collaboration,” he said. “The bottom line is that OTP would allow us to reach more patients, serve the community, and ensure that people are able to get healthcare, especially in underserved areas.”

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Recent legislative sessions in state legislative houses across the country have yielded progress toward codifying optimal team practice (OTP) into state law. That’s according to Phil Bongiorno, BA, senior vice president of advocacy and government relations at the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA), who spoke at the group’s annual meeting.

OTP refers to the AAPA’s goal of improving patient access to care and lessening administrative obligations by eliminating the legal requirement that there be a specific relationship between a PA, physician, or any other health care provider. This would allow a PA to practice to the full extent of their education, training, and experience, Mr. Bongiorno said.

The second tenet of OTP is to persuade states to create a separate majority PA board to regulate PAs. An alternative to this would be for states to add PAs and physicians who work with PAs to their medical or healing arts boards, he said.

Third, in an OTP environment, each state would authorize PAs to be eligible for direct payment by all public and private insurers. “We have seen that development at the federal level, as far as Medicare is concerned,” Mr. Bongiorno said. “Now, we’re focusing on making that happen in the individual states as well.”

According to Mr. Bongiorno, this year’s state advocacy priorities are to pursue new legislation in additional states, even as efforts continue to persuade state legislatures to act on carryover bills from the previous legislative session.

Mr. Bongiorno briefly summarized what he called “OTP successes” from 2021:

• Federal government: Authorized direct payment to PAs under Medicare
• Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania: Added one or more PAs to their medical boards
• Florida, Utah: Approved direct payment to PAs
• Tennessee, Wisconsin: Created a separate PA review board
• Utah, Wisconsin: Removed the relationship/agreement requirement (Wisconsin now requires 10,000 hours of practice to remove the relationship requirement)

North Central region

In Colorado, House Bill 1095 (HB1095) would have removed requirements for a legal relationship between a PA and a physician. Initially that would have happened after 3,000 hours of practice, although changing that to 5,000 hours has been a compromise measure. PAs changing specialties must collaborate for 2,000 hours, now negotiated to 3,000 hours.

HB1095 ultimately was not successful last year or this year, said Erika Miller, director of state advocacy and outreach for the AAPA. “But we do see it as a success, because in the 2022 session, we managed to get it passed in committee by a 10-to-1 vote,” she said. “It then moved to the full house and was not successful there.”

Ms. Miller said that South Dakota Senate Bill 134 would have removed the requirement for a legal PA/physician relationship after 1,040 hours, which is the requirement for nurse practitioners. “South Dakota had introduced similar legislation the year before, but also like Colorado, they went from not getting out of committee last year to making it to the senate floor this time,” she said.

In Wisconsin, the new PA-affiliated credentialing board began on April 1. It gives PAs the authority to license, discipline, and write regulations, Ms. Miller said.
 

South Central region

Arizona Senate Bill 1367 included direct pay, removed the relationship tether with a physician, and made each PA fully responsible for the care they provide. “The bill passed out of committee successfully but did not make it to a vote due to unexpected struggles between the Arizona medical society and PA chapter,” said Shannon Morey, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA. “They are ready to go again next year.”

In Louisiana, Senate Bill 158 is a “strong” bill that addressed all the desired aspects of OTP, Ms. Morey said; “The legislation stands subject to call on the Senate floor, but it has been killed by the sponsor.”
 

Northeast region

Massachusetts Senate Bill 740 (S740) would remove the legal tether between PA and physician, said Carson Walker, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA. “The committee decided to extend its time in committee until June,” he said. “By next month, we expect that the committee will schedule a hearing that includes S740, and we fully plan on submitting testimony.”

In New York, Senate Bill 9233 (S9233) would remove physician supervision after 3,600 hours of practice.

“Just about 10 days ago, sponsors were able to have S9233 introduced, which is the most succinct and, I think, the most effective OTP bill I have ever seen,” Mr. Walker said.

“S9233 says that after 3,600 hours a PA can practice without the supervision of a physician, and that’s all. There’s not a lot of time left in this session, but we are hopeful that it lays the groundwork for success next year.”

New Hampshire Senate Bill 228 has passed the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature. It will allow direct payment, make PAs responsible for the care they provide, and shift the physician-PA relationship from supervision to collaboration, Mr. Walker said.
 

Southeast region

Stephanie Radix, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA, discussed North Carolina’s Senate Bill 345, which passed the Senate unanimously in 2021 and has been carried over to this year’s session. The bill defines team-based settings, eliminates the relationship tether, and establishes a supervised career entry interval of 4,000 clinical hours in the state.

The legislature is slated to adjourn June 30, Ms. Radix said: “We are very hopeful that we will get it across the finish line.”

In an interview, Mr. Bongiorno said that the AAPA’s overall advocacy progress is as expected.

“Optimal team practice is about allowing each practice to make that determination on how the team should work as a true collaboration,” he said. “The bottom line is that OTP would allow us to reach more patients, serve the community, and ensure that people are able to get healthcare, especially in underserved areas.”

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Recent legislative sessions in state legislative houses across the country have yielded progress toward codifying optimal team practice (OTP) into state law. That’s according to Phil Bongiorno, BA, senior vice president of advocacy and government relations at the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA), who spoke at the group’s annual meeting.

OTP refers to the AAPA’s goal of improving patient access to care and lessening administrative obligations by eliminating the legal requirement that there be a specific relationship between a PA, physician, or any other health care provider. This would allow a PA to practice to the full extent of their education, training, and experience, Mr. Bongiorno said.

The second tenet of OTP is to persuade states to create a separate majority PA board to regulate PAs. An alternative to this would be for states to add PAs and physicians who work with PAs to their medical or healing arts boards, he said.

Third, in an OTP environment, each state would authorize PAs to be eligible for direct payment by all public and private insurers. “We have seen that development at the federal level, as far as Medicare is concerned,” Mr. Bongiorno said. “Now, we’re focusing on making that happen in the individual states as well.”

According to Mr. Bongiorno, this year’s state advocacy priorities are to pursue new legislation in additional states, even as efforts continue to persuade state legislatures to act on carryover bills from the previous legislative session.

Mr. Bongiorno briefly summarized what he called “OTP successes” from 2021:

• Federal government: Authorized direct payment to PAs under Medicare
• Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania: Added one or more PAs to their medical boards
• Florida, Utah: Approved direct payment to PAs
• Tennessee, Wisconsin: Created a separate PA review board
• Utah, Wisconsin: Removed the relationship/agreement requirement (Wisconsin now requires 10,000 hours of practice to remove the relationship requirement)

North Central region

In Colorado, House Bill 1095 (HB1095) would have removed requirements for a legal relationship between a PA and a physician. Initially that would have happened after 3,000 hours of practice, although changing that to 5,000 hours has been a compromise measure. PAs changing specialties must collaborate for 2,000 hours, now negotiated to 3,000 hours.

HB1095 ultimately was not successful last year or this year, said Erika Miller, director of state advocacy and outreach for the AAPA. “But we do see it as a success, because in the 2022 session, we managed to get it passed in committee by a 10-to-1 vote,” she said. “It then moved to the full house and was not successful there.”

Ms. Miller said that South Dakota Senate Bill 134 would have removed the requirement for a legal PA/physician relationship after 1,040 hours, which is the requirement for nurse practitioners. “South Dakota had introduced similar legislation the year before, but also like Colorado, they went from not getting out of committee last year to making it to the senate floor this time,” she said.

In Wisconsin, the new PA-affiliated credentialing board began on April 1. It gives PAs the authority to license, discipline, and write regulations, Ms. Miller said.
 

South Central region

Arizona Senate Bill 1367 included direct pay, removed the relationship tether with a physician, and made each PA fully responsible for the care they provide. “The bill passed out of committee successfully but did not make it to a vote due to unexpected struggles between the Arizona medical society and PA chapter,” said Shannon Morey, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA. “They are ready to go again next year.”

In Louisiana, Senate Bill 158 is a “strong” bill that addressed all the desired aspects of OTP, Ms. Morey said; “The legislation stands subject to call on the Senate floor, but it has been killed by the sponsor.”
 

Northeast region

Massachusetts Senate Bill 740 (S740) would remove the legal tether between PA and physician, said Carson Walker, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA. “The committee decided to extend its time in committee until June,” he said. “By next month, we expect that the committee will schedule a hearing that includes S740, and we fully plan on submitting testimony.”

In New York, Senate Bill 9233 (S9233) would remove physician supervision after 3,600 hours of practice.

“Just about 10 days ago, sponsors were able to have S9233 introduced, which is the most succinct and, I think, the most effective OTP bill I have ever seen,” Mr. Walker said.

“S9233 says that after 3,600 hours a PA can practice without the supervision of a physician, and that’s all. There’s not a lot of time left in this session, but we are hopeful that it lays the groundwork for success next year.”

New Hampshire Senate Bill 228 has passed the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature. It will allow direct payment, make PAs responsible for the care they provide, and shift the physician-PA relationship from supervision to collaboration, Mr. Walker said.
 

Southeast region

Stephanie Radix, senior director of state advocacy and outreach at the AAPA, discussed North Carolina’s Senate Bill 345, which passed the Senate unanimously in 2021 and has been carried over to this year’s session. The bill defines team-based settings, eliminates the relationship tether, and establishes a supervised career entry interval of 4,000 clinical hours in the state.

The legislature is slated to adjourn June 30, Ms. Radix said: “We are very hopeful that we will get it across the finish line.”

In an interview, Mr. Bongiorno said that the AAPA’s overall advocacy progress is as expected.

“Optimal team practice is about allowing each practice to make that determination on how the team should work as a true collaboration,” he said. “The bottom line is that OTP would allow us to reach more patients, serve the community, and ensure that people are able to get healthcare, especially in underserved areas.”

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