MDedge Psychiatry

Insomnia may increase vulnerability to influenza-like illness, a novel finding that was revealed by the passive collection of biometric data from a smart bed.

The study of smart-bed sleepers found that there was a statistically significant correlation between a higher number of episodes of influenza-like illnesses (ILI) per year with longer duration compared to people without insomnia.

However, more research is needed to determine causality and whether insomnia may predispose to ILI or whether ILI affects long-term sleep behavior, the researchers noted. 

“Several lines of evidence make me think that it’s more likely that insomnia makes one more vulnerable to influenza through pathways that involve decreased immune function,” study investigator Gary Garcia-Molina, PhD, with Sleep Number Labs, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

Sleep disorders, including insomnia, can dampen immune function and an individual’s ability to fight off illness, he noted.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Smart, connected devices

Pathophysiological responses to respiratory viral infection affect sleep duration and quality in addition to breathing function. “Smart” and “connected” devices that monitor biosignals over time have shown promise for monitoring infectious disease.

In an earlier study presented at SLEEP 2021, Dr. Garcia-Molina and colleagues found that real-world biometric data obtained from a smart bed can help predict and track symptoms of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections. They showed that worsening of COVID-19 symptoms correlated with an increase in sleep duration, breathing rate, and heart rate and a decrease in sleep quality.

In the new study, the researchers evaluated vulnerability to ILI in people with insomnia.

They quantified insomnia over time using the insomnia severity index (ISI). They quantified ILI vulnerability using an established artificial intelligence model they developed that estimates the daily probability of ILI symptoms from a Sleep Number smart bed using ballistocardiograph sensors.

Smart bed data – including daily and restful sleep duration, sleep latency, sleep quality, heart rate, breathing rate and motion level – were queried from 2019 (pre-COVID) and 2021.

A total of 1,680 smart sleepers had nearly constant ISI scores over the study period, with 249 having insomnia and 1,431 not having insomnia.

Data from both 2019 and 2021 show that smart sleepers with insomnia had significantly more and longer ILI episodes per year, compared with peers without insomnia.

For 2019, individuals without insomnia had 1.2 ILI episodes on average, which was significantly less (P < .01) than individuals with insomnia, at 1.5 episodes. The average ILI episode duration for those without insomnia was 4.3 days, which was significantly lower (P < .01) in those with insomnia group, at 6.1 days.

The data for 2021 show similar results, with the no-insomnia group having significantly fewer (P < .01) ILI episodes (about 1.2), compared with the insomnia group (about 1.5).

The average ILI episode duration for the no-insomnia group was 5 days, which was significantly less (P < .01) than the insomnia group, at 6.1 days.

The researchers said their study adds to other data on the relationship between sleep and overall health and well-being. It also highlights the potential health risk of insomnia and the importance of identifying and treating sleep disorders.

“Sleep has such a profound influence on health and wellness and the ability to capture these data unobtrusively in such an easy way and with such a large number of participants paves the way to investigate different aspects of health and disease,” Dr. Garcia-Molina said.
 

Rich data source

In a comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president of Payer+Provider Syndicate, a management advisory and operational consulting firm, said “smart beds provide a new data source for passively monitoring the health of individuals.”

“Unlike active monitoring methods requiring self-report, passive monitoring enables data to be captured without an individual taking any action. This data can be potentially integrated with data from other sources, such as pedometers, smart scales, and smart blood pressure cuffs, to gain a more holistic understanding of how an individual’s activities and behaviors impact their well-being,” said Dr. Powell, who wasn’t involved in the study.

There are some methodological limitations to the study, he noted.

“While the dependent variables examined were the duration and presence of episodes of influenza-like illness, they did not directly measure these episodes. Instead, they calculated the daily probability of influenza-like illness symptoms using a model that received input from the ballistocardiograph sensors in the smart beds,” Dr. Powell noted.

“The model used to calculate daily probability of influenza-like illness was created by examining associations between individuals’ smart-bed sensor data and population-level trends in influenza-like illness reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” he explained.

Nonetheless, the findings are “consistent with the literature. It has been established by other researchers that impaired sleep is associated with greater risk of influenza, as well as other illnesses,” Dr. Powell said.

Funding for the study was provided by Sleep Number. Dr. Garcia-Molina and five coauthors are employed by Sleep Number. Dr. Powell reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia may increase vulnerability to influenza-like illness, a novel finding that was revealed by the passive collection of biometric data from a smart bed.

The study of smart-bed sleepers found that there was a statistically significant correlation between a higher number of episodes of influenza-like illnesses (ILI) per year with longer duration compared to people without insomnia.

However, more research is needed to determine causality and whether insomnia may predispose to ILI or whether ILI affects long-term sleep behavior, the researchers noted. 

“Several lines of evidence make me think that it’s more likely that insomnia makes one more vulnerable to influenza through pathways that involve decreased immune function,” study investigator Gary Garcia-Molina, PhD, with Sleep Number Labs, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

Sleep disorders, including insomnia, can dampen immune function and an individual’s ability to fight off illness, he noted.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Smart, connected devices

Pathophysiological responses to respiratory viral infection affect sleep duration and quality in addition to breathing function. “Smart” and “connected” devices that monitor biosignals over time have shown promise for monitoring infectious disease.

In an earlier study presented at SLEEP 2021, Dr. Garcia-Molina and colleagues found that real-world biometric data obtained from a smart bed can help predict and track symptoms of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections. They showed that worsening of COVID-19 symptoms correlated with an increase in sleep duration, breathing rate, and heart rate and a decrease in sleep quality.

In the new study, the researchers evaluated vulnerability to ILI in people with insomnia.

They quantified insomnia over time using the insomnia severity index (ISI). They quantified ILI vulnerability using an established artificial intelligence model they developed that estimates the daily probability of ILI symptoms from a Sleep Number smart bed using ballistocardiograph sensors.

Smart bed data – including daily and restful sleep duration, sleep latency, sleep quality, heart rate, breathing rate and motion level – were queried from 2019 (pre-COVID) and 2021.

A total of 1,680 smart sleepers had nearly constant ISI scores over the study period, with 249 having insomnia and 1,431 not having insomnia.

Data from both 2019 and 2021 show that smart sleepers with insomnia had significantly more and longer ILI episodes per year, compared with peers without insomnia.

For 2019, individuals without insomnia had 1.2 ILI episodes on average, which was significantly less (P < .01) than individuals with insomnia, at 1.5 episodes. The average ILI episode duration for those without insomnia was 4.3 days, which was significantly lower (P < .01) in those with insomnia group, at 6.1 days.

The data for 2021 show similar results, with the no-insomnia group having significantly fewer (P < .01) ILI episodes (about 1.2), compared with the insomnia group (about 1.5).

The average ILI episode duration for the no-insomnia group was 5 days, which was significantly less (P < .01) than the insomnia group, at 6.1 days.

The researchers said their study adds to other data on the relationship between sleep and overall health and well-being. It also highlights the potential health risk of insomnia and the importance of identifying and treating sleep disorders.

“Sleep has such a profound influence on health and wellness and the ability to capture these data unobtrusively in such an easy way and with such a large number of participants paves the way to investigate different aspects of health and disease,” Dr. Garcia-Molina said.
 

Rich data source

In a comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president of Payer+Provider Syndicate, a management advisory and operational consulting firm, said “smart beds provide a new data source for passively monitoring the health of individuals.”

“Unlike active monitoring methods requiring self-report, passive monitoring enables data to be captured without an individual taking any action. This data can be potentially integrated with data from other sources, such as pedometers, smart scales, and smart blood pressure cuffs, to gain a more holistic understanding of how an individual’s activities and behaviors impact their well-being,” said Dr. Powell, who wasn’t involved in the study.

There are some methodological limitations to the study, he noted.

“While the dependent variables examined were the duration and presence of episodes of influenza-like illness, they did not directly measure these episodes. Instead, they calculated the daily probability of influenza-like illness symptoms using a model that received input from the ballistocardiograph sensors in the smart beds,” Dr. Powell noted.

“The model used to calculate daily probability of influenza-like illness was created by examining associations between individuals’ smart-bed sensor data and population-level trends in influenza-like illness reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” he explained.

Nonetheless, the findings are “consistent with the literature. It has been established by other researchers that impaired sleep is associated with greater risk of influenza, as well as other illnesses,” Dr. Powell said.

Funding for the study was provided by Sleep Number. Dr. Garcia-Molina and five coauthors are employed by Sleep Number. Dr. Powell reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia may increase vulnerability to influenza-like illness, a novel finding that was revealed by the passive collection of biometric data from a smart bed.

The study of smart-bed sleepers found that there was a statistically significant correlation between a higher number of episodes of influenza-like illnesses (ILI) per year with longer duration compared to people without insomnia.

However, more research is needed to determine causality and whether insomnia may predispose to ILI or whether ILI affects long-term sleep behavior, the researchers noted. 

“Several lines of evidence make me think that it’s more likely that insomnia makes one more vulnerable to influenza through pathways that involve decreased immune function,” study investigator Gary Garcia-Molina, PhD, with Sleep Number Labs, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

Sleep disorders, including insomnia, can dampen immune function and an individual’s ability to fight off illness, he noted.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Smart, connected devices

Pathophysiological responses to respiratory viral infection affect sleep duration and quality in addition to breathing function. “Smart” and “connected” devices that monitor biosignals over time have shown promise for monitoring infectious disease.

In an earlier study presented at SLEEP 2021, Dr. Garcia-Molina and colleagues found that real-world biometric data obtained from a smart bed can help predict and track symptoms of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections. They showed that worsening of COVID-19 symptoms correlated with an increase in sleep duration, breathing rate, and heart rate and a decrease in sleep quality.

In the new study, the researchers evaluated vulnerability to ILI in people with insomnia.

They quantified insomnia over time using the insomnia severity index (ISI). They quantified ILI vulnerability using an established artificial intelligence model they developed that estimates the daily probability of ILI symptoms from a Sleep Number smart bed using ballistocardiograph sensors.

Smart bed data – including daily and restful sleep duration, sleep latency, sleep quality, heart rate, breathing rate and motion level – were queried from 2019 (pre-COVID) and 2021.

A total of 1,680 smart sleepers had nearly constant ISI scores over the study period, with 249 having insomnia and 1,431 not having insomnia.

Data from both 2019 and 2021 show that smart sleepers with insomnia had significantly more and longer ILI episodes per year, compared with peers without insomnia.

For 2019, individuals without insomnia had 1.2 ILI episodes on average, which was significantly less (P < .01) than individuals with insomnia, at 1.5 episodes. The average ILI episode duration for those without insomnia was 4.3 days, which was significantly lower (P < .01) in those with insomnia group, at 6.1 days.

The data for 2021 show similar results, with the no-insomnia group having significantly fewer (P < .01) ILI episodes (about 1.2), compared with the insomnia group (about 1.5).

The average ILI episode duration for the no-insomnia group was 5 days, which was significantly less (P < .01) than the insomnia group, at 6.1 days.

The researchers said their study adds to other data on the relationship between sleep and overall health and well-being. It also highlights the potential health risk of insomnia and the importance of identifying and treating sleep disorders.

“Sleep has such a profound influence on health and wellness and the ability to capture these data unobtrusively in such an easy way and with such a large number of participants paves the way to investigate different aspects of health and disease,” Dr. Garcia-Molina said.
 

Rich data source

In a comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president of Payer+Provider Syndicate, a management advisory and operational consulting firm, said “smart beds provide a new data source for passively monitoring the health of individuals.”

“Unlike active monitoring methods requiring self-report, passive monitoring enables data to be captured without an individual taking any action. This data can be potentially integrated with data from other sources, such as pedometers, smart scales, and smart blood pressure cuffs, to gain a more holistic understanding of how an individual’s activities and behaviors impact their well-being,” said Dr. Powell, who wasn’t involved in the study.

There are some methodological limitations to the study, he noted.

“While the dependent variables examined were the duration and presence of episodes of influenza-like illness, they did not directly measure these episodes. Instead, they calculated the daily probability of influenza-like illness symptoms using a model that received input from the ballistocardiograph sensors in the smart beds,” Dr. Powell noted.

“The model used to calculate daily probability of influenza-like illness was created by examining associations between individuals’ smart-bed sensor data and population-level trends in influenza-like illness reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” he explained.

Nonetheless, the findings are “consistent with the literature. It has been established by other researchers that impaired sleep is associated with greater risk of influenza, as well as other illnesses,” Dr. Powell said.

Funding for the study was provided by Sleep Number. Dr. Garcia-Molina and five coauthors are employed by Sleep Number. Dr. Powell reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Not everyone will suffer an episode of posttraumatic stress disorder, even though everyday American life is characterized by a lot of uncertainty these days, particularly considering the proliferation of gun violence.

Robert T. London

Also, everyone who does experience a traumatic event will not suffer an episode of PTSD – just as not everyone develops a heart attack or cancer, nor will everyone get every illness.

The data suggest that of those exposed to trauma, up to 25% of people will develop PTSD, according to Massachusetts General/McLean Hospital, Belmont, psychiatrist Kerry J. Ressler, MD, PhD, chief of the division of depression and anxiety disorders.

As I wrote in December 2022, our “kids” are not all right and psychiatry can help. I would say that many adolescents, and adults as well, may not be all right as we are terrorized not only by mass school shootings, but shootings happening almost anywhere and everywhere in our country: in supermarkets, hospitals, and shopping malls, at graduation parties, and on the streets.

According to a report published in Clinical Psychiatry News, a poll conducted by the American Psychiatric Association showed that most American adults [70%] reported that they were anxious or extremely anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe. APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, pointed out that there is “a lot of worry out there about economic uncertainty, about violence and how we are going to come out of this time period.”

Meanwhile, PTSD is still defined in the DSM-5 as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence experienced directly, witnessing the traumatic event as it occurs to others, learning that a traumatic event occurred to a close family member or friend, or experiencing of traumatic events plus extreme exposure to aversive details of the event.

Examples of traumatic events can be numerous. They include natural disasters, man-made disasters, various types of assaults, war trauma, and severe illness with ICU experiences. I would add encounters with racism and bigotry – including homophobia when one fears for their very life or physical injury. This list includes only a few triggers that may invoke this disorder.

Interestingly, the DSM-5 excludes aversive exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. Including these aspects of trauma exposure would indeed increase PTSD diagnoses, and I believe this type of exposure needs to be included, especially considering how different people process information. Some viewers of media remain “outside” the events depicted on television, movies, or electronic media while others fit directly “into” the film or TV show. Even, for example, a news program, as evidenced by those people suffering from PTSD after viewing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster on TV.

I have interviewed numerous people who witnessed Sept. 11 tragedies on TV, some during and some after the event, and they genuinely had experienced key factors of PTSD, including nightmares and intrusive recollections of the event. It’s important to include the ways in which people process information and events in order to make a correct diagnosis, in that “one [diagnostic] size does not fit all.”
 

PTSD at school

In my December column, I noted the fear of death that my generation and beyond experienced with the endless threat of nuclear war, which by its very nature meant death, and if not, the saying went “the living would envy the dead” – that is, in post–nuclear war.

As I pointed out in the column, that war never came and hopefully never will, yet the intensity of those many decades of threatened terror with regular school exercises of “hide under the desk” and “don’t look at the flash” left some with intrusive fearful thoughts, nightmares, and even visualization of atomic destruction, as well as the many scenes of destruction portrayed in news casts and films of nuclear explosions.

Clearly, most U.S. school children who participate in school lockdown drills will not suffer from PTSD episodes, but some will. If that “some” approaches 20% or even 10% or less, that will amount to a lot of kids.

I decided to interview two of my grandchildren, each living in different communities and attending different school systems, but both experiencing “lockdown drills.”

Jack, who is 13 and going into eighth grade, was quite clear regarding the drills and reported that in his age group, both he and the kids in his class felt scared while in lockdown. He told me some kids looked nervous. He mentioned that they were taught in school that if the “real thing” happened, the message was “hide, run, and fight.” I was curious and asked why not run first. He was quick to answer and said if you run, you might run into danger, so it’s better to hide and wait for help to arrive. I said to myself, if not PTSD, then being scared or nervous may also lead to anxiety or even to an anxiety disorder.

Next, I interviewed almost 11-year-old Charley, who is going into sixth grade. She was very clear about not at all being fearful or nervous during these drills and was confident that her classmates felt the same way. Then she explained that the school did a great job with a security officer and had locked doors all around that only opened from the inside. She was proud of the school and not fearful or worried at all.

The diverse views of these two young people surprised me but confirm that PTSD is not at all a given based on what is occurring in society. However, it should always be considered by clinicians if a child or adolescent begins to show signs consistent with PTSD.

These two interviews were quite short, but after I finished talking with Charley, she reported spontaneously that while she and her classmates were neither worried nor scared, some of their teachers did look nervous and seemed scared.

I was quite impressed with her sharpness and nuanced observation, and as noted, adults as well may be adversely affected by the entire concept of school lockdowns, as the awareness of their purpose rests in the forefront of their minds.
 

The way forward

So how do we prepare kids and adolescents for potential emotional problems like PTSD arising from lockdowns, even though most children or adults will not suffer any of these PTSD issues?

First, I believe that as we develop and teach health education in schools, mental health issues should be included according to grade level without generating fear or worry. Second, it is important that school children be aware that if they feel bad in any way emotionally, they should speak to their parents, guardians, teachers, or school nurses.

Clearly, communicating simple problems without embarrassment or shame can lead to solutions, often quickly. Larger, more complicated issues may need professional intervention. Equally important, many mental health interventions need not be long in duration but client-centered, focused, and short term.

But what needs to be emphasized is that speaking and addressing what’s going on, if your thoughts and emotions are troubling, are in themselves therapeutic. Talk therapy works – especially if you get a new perspective on the old set of problems.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

Not everyone will suffer an episode of posttraumatic stress disorder, even though everyday American life is characterized by a lot of uncertainty these days, particularly considering the proliferation of gun violence.

Robert T. London

Also, everyone who does experience a traumatic event will not suffer an episode of PTSD – just as not everyone develops a heart attack or cancer, nor will everyone get every illness.

The data suggest that of those exposed to trauma, up to 25% of people will develop PTSD, according to Massachusetts General/McLean Hospital, Belmont, psychiatrist Kerry J. Ressler, MD, PhD, chief of the division of depression and anxiety disorders.

As I wrote in December 2022, our “kids” are not all right and psychiatry can help. I would say that many adolescents, and adults as well, may not be all right as we are terrorized not only by mass school shootings, but shootings happening almost anywhere and everywhere in our country: in supermarkets, hospitals, and shopping malls, at graduation parties, and on the streets.

According to a report published in Clinical Psychiatry News, a poll conducted by the American Psychiatric Association showed that most American adults [70%] reported that they were anxious or extremely anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe. APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, pointed out that there is “a lot of worry out there about economic uncertainty, about violence and how we are going to come out of this time period.”

Meanwhile, PTSD is still defined in the DSM-5 as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence experienced directly, witnessing the traumatic event as it occurs to others, learning that a traumatic event occurred to a close family member or friend, or experiencing of traumatic events plus extreme exposure to aversive details of the event.

Examples of traumatic events can be numerous. They include natural disasters, man-made disasters, various types of assaults, war trauma, and severe illness with ICU experiences. I would add encounters with racism and bigotry – including homophobia when one fears for their very life or physical injury. This list includes only a few triggers that may invoke this disorder.

Interestingly, the DSM-5 excludes aversive exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. Including these aspects of trauma exposure would indeed increase PTSD diagnoses, and I believe this type of exposure needs to be included, especially considering how different people process information. Some viewers of media remain “outside” the events depicted on television, movies, or electronic media while others fit directly “into” the film or TV show. Even, for example, a news program, as evidenced by those people suffering from PTSD after viewing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster on TV.

I have interviewed numerous people who witnessed Sept. 11 tragedies on TV, some during and some after the event, and they genuinely had experienced key factors of PTSD, including nightmares and intrusive recollections of the event. It’s important to include the ways in which people process information and events in order to make a correct diagnosis, in that “one [diagnostic] size does not fit all.”
 

PTSD at school

In my December column, I noted the fear of death that my generation and beyond experienced with the endless threat of nuclear war, which by its very nature meant death, and if not, the saying went “the living would envy the dead” – that is, in post–nuclear war.

As I pointed out in the column, that war never came and hopefully never will, yet the intensity of those many decades of threatened terror with regular school exercises of “hide under the desk” and “don’t look at the flash” left some with intrusive fearful thoughts, nightmares, and even visualization of atomic destruction, as well as the many scenes of destruction portrayed in news casts and films of nuclear explosions.

Clearly, most U.S. school children who participate in school lockdown drills will not suffer from PTSD episodes, but some will. If that “some” approaches 20% or even 10% or less, that will amount to a lot of kids.

I decided to interview two of my grandchildren, each living in different communities and attending different school systems, but both experiencing “lockdown drills.”

Jack, who is 13 and going into eighth grade, was quite clear regarding the drills and reported that in his age group, both he and the kids in his class felt scared while in lockdown. He told me some kids looked nervous. He mentioned that they were taught in school that if the “real thing” happened, the message was “hide, run, and fight.” I was curious and asked why not run first. He was quick to answer and said if you run, you might run into danger, so it’s better to hide and wait for help to arrive. I said to myself, if not PTSD, then being scared or nervous may also lead to anxiety or even to an anxiety disorder.

Next, I interviewed almost 11-year-old Charley, who is going into sixth grade. She was very clear about not at all being fearful or nervous during these drills and was confident that her classmates felt the same way. Then she explained that the school did a great job with a security officer and had locked doors all around that only opened from the inside. She was proud of the school and not fearful or worried at all.

The diverse views of these two young people surprised me but confirm that PTSD is not at all a given based on what is occurring in society. However, it should always be considered by clinicians if a child or adolescent begins to show signs consistent with PTSD.

These two interviews were quite short, but after I finished talking with Charley, she reported spontaneously that while she and her classmates were neither worried nor scared, some of their teachers did look nervous and seemed scared.

I was quite impressed with her sharpness and nuanced observation, and as noted, adults as well may be adversely affected by the entire concept of school lockdowns, as the awareness of their purpose rests in the forefront of their minds.
 

The way forward

So how do we prepare kids and adolescents for potential emotional problems like PTSD arising from lockdowns, even though most children or adults will not suffer any of these PTSD issues?

First, I believe that as we develop and teach health education in schools, mental health issues should be included according to grade level without generating fear or worry. Second, it is important that school children be aware that if they feel bad in any way emotionally, they should speak to their parents, guardians, teachers, or school nurses.

Clearly, communicating simple problems without embarrassment or shame can lead to solutions, often quickly. Larger, more complicated issues may need professional intervention. Equally important, many mental health interventions need not be long in duration but client-centered, focused, and short term.

But what needs to be emphasized is that speaking and addressing what’s going on, if your thoughts and emotions are troubling, are in themselves therapeutic. Talk therapy works – especially if you get a new perspective on the old set of problems.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

Not everyone will suffer an episode of posttraumatic stress disorder, even though everyday American life is characterized by a lot of uncertainty these days, particularly considering the proliferation of gun violence.

Robert T. London

Also, everyone who does experience a traumatic event will not suffer an episode of PTSD – just as not everyone develops a heart attack or cancer, nor will everyone get every illness.

The data suggest that of those exposed to trauma, up to 25% of people will develop PTSD, according to Massachusetts General/McLean Hospital, Belmont, psychiatrist Kerry J. Ressler, MD, PhD, chief of the division of depression and anxiety disorders.

As I wrote in December 2022, our “kids” are not all right and psychiatry can help. I would say that many adolescents, and adults as well, may not be all right as we are terrorized not only by mass school shootings, but shootings happening almost anywhere and everywhere in our country: in supermarkets, hospitals, and shopping malls, at graduation parties, and on the streets.

According to a report published in Clinical Psychiatry News, a poll conducted by the American Psychiatric Association showed that most American adults [70%] reported that they were anxious or extremely anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe. APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, pointed out that there is “a lot of worry out there about economic uncertainty, about violence and how we are going to come out of this time period.”

Meanwhile, PTSD is still defined in the DSM-5 as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence experienced directly, witnessing the traumatic event as it occurs to others, learning that a traumatic event occurred to a close family member or friend, or experiencing of traumatic events plus extreme exposure to aversive details of the event.

Examples of traumatic events can be numerous. They include natural disasters, man-made disasters, various types of assaults, war trauma, and severe illness with ICU experiences. I would add encounters with racism and bigotry – including homophobia when one fears for their very life or physical injury. This list includes only a few triggers that may invoke this disorder.

Interestingly, the DSM-5 excludes aversive exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. Including these aspects of trauma exposure would indeed increase PTSD diagnoses, and I believe this type of exposure needs to be included, especially considering how different people process information. Some viewers of media remain “outside” the events depicted on television, movies, or electronic media while others fit directly “into” the film or TV show. Even, for example, a news program, as evidenced by those people suffering from PTSD after viewing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster on TV.

I have interviewed numerous people who witnessed Sept. 11 tragedies on TV, some during and some after the event, and they genuinely had experienced key factors of PTSD, including nightmares and intrusive recollections of the event. It’s important to include the ways in which people process information and events in order to make a correct diagnosis, in that “one [diagnostic] size does not fit all.”
 

PTSD at school

In my December column, I noted the fear of death that my generation and beyond experienced with the endless threat of nuclear war, which by its very nature meant death, and if not, the saying went “the living would envy the dead” – that is, in post–nuclear war.

As I pointed out in the column, that war never came and hopefully never will, yet the intensity of those many decades of threatened terror with regular school exercises of “hide under the desk” and “don’t look at the flash” left some with intrusive fearful thoughts, nightmares, and even visualization of atomic destruction, as well as the many scenes of destruction portrayed in news casts and films of nuclear explosions.

Clearly, most U.S. school children who participate in school lockdown drills will not suffer from PTSD episodes, but some will. If that “some” approaches 20% or even 10% or less, that will amount to a lot of kids.

I decided to interview two of my grandchildren, each living in different communities and attending different school systems, but both experiencing “lockdown drills.”

Jack, who is 13 and going into eighth grade, was quite clear regarding the drills and reported that in his age group, both he and the kids in his class felt scared while in lockdown. He told me some kids looked nervous. He mentioned that they were taught in school that if the “real thing” happened, the message was “hide, run, and fight.” I was curious and asked why not run first. He was quick to answer and said if you run, you might run into danger, so it’s better to hide and wait for help to arrive. I said to myself, if not PTSD, then being scared or nervous may also lead to anxiety or even to an anxiety disorder.

Next, I interviewed almost 11-year-old Charley, who is going into sixth grade. She was very clear about not at all being fearful or nervous during these drills and was confident that her classmates felt the same way. Then she explained that the school did a great job with a security officer and had locked doors all around that only opened from the inside. She was proud of the school and not fearful or worried at all.

The diverse views of these two young people surprised me but confirm that PTSD is not at all a given based on what is occurring in society. However, it should always be considered by clinicians if a child or adolescent begins to show signs consistent with PTSD.

These two interviews were quite short, but after I finished talking with Charley, she reported spontaneously that while she and her classmates were neither worried nor scared, some of their teachers did look nervous and seemed scared.

I was quite impressed with her sharpness and nuanced observation, and as noted, adults as well may be adversely affected by the entire concept of school lockdowns, as the awareness of their purpose rests in the forefront of their minds.
 

The way forward

So how do we prepare kids and adolescents for potential emotional problems like PTSD arising from lockdowns, even though most children or adults will not suffer any of these PTSD issues?

First, I believe that as we develop and teach health education in schools, mental health issues should be included according to grade level without generating fear or worry. Second, it is important that school children be aware that if they feel bad in any way emotionally, they should speak to their parents, guardians, teachers, or school nurses.

Clearly, communicating simple problems without embarrassment or shame can lead to solutions, often quickly. Larger, more complicated issues may need professional intervention. Equally important, many mental health interventions need not be long in duration but client-centered, focused, and short term.

But what needs to be emphasized is that speaking and addressing what’s going on, if your thoughts and emotions are troubling, are in themselves therapeutic. Talk therapy works – especially if you get a new perspective on the old set of problems.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

Patients with “treatment-resistant depression” may be taking other medications with side effects that interfere with antidepressant efficacy.

Investigators studied over 800 patients who were taking antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD) and found that close to two-thirds were taking at least one nonpsychiatric medication with potential depressive symptom side effects (PDSS), more than 30% were taking two or more such medications, and 20% at least three such medications.

These medications, which included antihypertensive medications and corticosteroids, among others, were associated with higher odds of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, compared with medications without PDSS.

“When evaluating the reasons for inadequate response to treatment for depression, clinicians should consider whether their patient is also receiving a nonpsychiatric medication with a potential for depressive symptom side effects,” study investigator Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Columbia University

Previous research limited

“In earlier research, we found that people who were taking medications with a potential to cause depressive symptom side effects were at increased risk of depression, especially those adults who were taking more than one of these medications,” said Dr. Olfson.

This finding led Dr. Olfson and his team to “wonder whether the risks of depressive symptoms associated with these medications extended to people who were being actively treated with antidepressants for depression.”

To investigate, they turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the United States general population.

The study was based on the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 waves and included 885 adults who reported using antidepressant medications for greater than or equal to 6 weeks for depression and whose depression could be ascertained.

Prescription medications with PDSS were identified through Micromedex, whose accuracy is “established” and primarily based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s labeled side effects.

Nonantidepressant psychiatric medications and medications for Alzheimer’s disease or substance use disorders were not included in the analysis.

Antidepressant-treated MDD was defined as taking an antidepressant for MDD for greater than or equal to 6 weeks. Depressive symptoms were ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) with a score of less than 5 representing no/minimal depressive symptoms and a score of greater than or equal to 10 indicating moderate/severe symptoms.

Other variables included self-reported sex, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and common chronic medical conditions such as hypertension, arthritis, lung disease, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
 

Recovery interrupted

Of the patients in the study treated with antidepressants, most were female, greater than or equal to 50 years, non-Hispanic White, and with a college education (70.55, 62.0%, 81.7%, and 69.4%, respectively).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were used by 67.9% of participants with MDD. Most had been on the same antidepressant medication for a “long time,” the authors report, with 79.2% and 67.8% taking them for greater than 1 year and greater than 2 years, respectively.

Despite the large number of patients on antidepressants, only 43.0% scored in the no/minimal symptoms range, based on the PHQ-9, while 28.4% scored in the moderate/severe range.

Most patients (85%) took at least one medication for medical conditions, with the majority medications with PDSS: 66.7% took at least one medication with PDSS, 37.3% took at least two, 21.6% took at least three, 10.7% took at least four, and 4.9% took at least five.

Almost 75% were using greater than or equal to 1 medication without PDSS, and about 50% were using greater than 1.

The number of medications with PDSS was significantly associated with lower odds of no/minimal depressive symptoms (AOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]; P < .001) and higher odds of moderate/severe symptoms (AOR, 1.14 [1.004-1.29]; P = .044).

“The predicted probability of no/minimal symptoms in those taking 5 medications with PDSS was less than half the predicted probability in those taking no medications with PDSS (0.23 vs. 0.52),” the authors report.

Conversely, the predicted probability of moderate/severe symptoms was ~50% higher in individuals taking 5 versus 0 medications with PDSS (0.36 vs. 0.24).

No corresponding associations were found for medications without PDSS.

The results were even stronger when the researchers repeated their adjusted regression analyses to focus on the 10 individual medications most associated with the severity of depressive symptoms. These were omeprazole, gabapentin, meloxicam, tramadol, ranitidine, baclofen, oxycodone, tizanidine, propranolol, and morphine, with an AOR of 0.42 [0.30-0.60] for no/minimal symptoms and 1.68 [1.24-2.27] for moderate/severe symptoms.

“Many widely prescribed medications, from antihypertensives, such as atenolol and metoprolol to corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone and triamcinolone, are associated with depression side effects,” said Dr. Olfson.

“These medications could interfere with recovery from depression. When available, consideration should be given to selecting a substitute with lower risk for depressive symptoms,” he said.
 

Role in treatment-resistant depression

In a comment, Dima Qato, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Hygeia Centennial chair and associate professor, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Los Angeles, said the study “is an important reminder that the use of medications with depressive symptoms side effects is increasingly common and may contribute to delays in responsiveness or worsen depressive symptoms among individuals being treated for depression.”

University of Southern California

Dr. Qato, who is also the director of the Program on Medicines and Public Health, USC School of Pharmacy, and was not involved with the study, recommended that clinicians “consider the role of medications with depression side effects when evaluating patients with treatment-resistant depression.”

The study was not supported by any funding agency. Dr. Olfson and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Qato is a consultant for the Public Citizen Health Research Group.

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

Patients with “treatment-resistant depression” may be taking other medications with side effects that interfere with antidepressant efficacy.

Investigators studied over 800 patients who were taking antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD) and found that close to two-thirds were taking at least one nonpsychiatric medication with potential depressive symptom side effects (PDSS), more than 30% were taking two or more such medications, and 20% at least three such medications.

These medications, which included antihypertensive medications and corticosteroids, among others, were associated with higher odds of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, compared with medications without PDSS.

“When evaluating the reasons for inadequate response to treatment for depression, clinicians should consider whether their patient is also receiving a nonpsychiatric medication with a potential for depressive symptom side effects,” study investigator Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Columbia University

Previous research limited

“In earlier research, we found that people who were taking medications with a potential to cause depressive symptom side effects were at increased risk of depression, especially those adults who were taking more than one of these medications,” said Dr. Olfson.

This finding led Dr. Olfson and his team to “wonder whether the risks of depressive symptoms associated with these medications extended to people who were being actively treated with antidepressants for depression.”

To investigate, they turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the United States general population.

The study was based on the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 waves and included 885 adults who reported using antidepressant medications for greater than or equal to 6 weeks for depression and whose depression could be ascertained.

Prescription medications with PDSS were identified through Micromedex, whose accuracy is “established” and primarily based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s labeled side effects.

Nonantidepressant psychiatric medications and medications for Alzheimer’s disease or substance use disorders were not included in the analysis.

Antidepressant-treated MDD was defined as taking an antidepressant for MDD for greater than or equal to 6 weeks. Depressive symptoms were ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) with a score of less than 5 representing no/minimal depressive symptoms and a score of greater than or equal to 10 indicating moderate/severe symptoms.

Other variables included self-reported sex, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and common chronic medical conditions such as hypertension, arthritis, lung disease, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
 

Recovery interrupted

Of the patients in the study treated with antidepressants, most were female, greater than or equal to 50 years, non-Hispanic White, and with a college education (70.55, 62.0%, 81.7%, and 69.4%, respectively).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were used by 67.9% of participants with MDD. Most had been on the same antidepressant medication for a “long time,” the authors report, with 79.2% and 67.8% taking them for greater than 1 year and greater than 2 years, respectively.

Despite the large number of patients on antidepressants, only 43.0% scored in the no/minimal symptoms range, based on the PHQ-9, while 28.4% scored in the moderate/severe range.

Most patients (85%) took at least one medication for medical conditions, with the majority medications with PDSS: 66.7% took at least one medication with PDSS, 37.3% took at least two, 21.6% took at least three, 10.7% took at least four, and 4.9% took at least five.

Almost 75% were using greater than or equal to 1 medication without PDSS, and about 50% were using greater than 1.

The number of medications with PDSS was significantly associated with lower odds of no/minimal depressive symptoms (AOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]; P < .001) and higher odds of moderate/severe symptoms (AOR, 1.14 [1.004-1.29]; P = .044).

“The predicted probability of no/minimal symptoms in those taking 5 medications with PDSS was less than half the predicted probability in those taking no medications with PDSS (0.23 vs. 0.52),” the authors report.

Conversely, the predicted probability of moderate/severe symptoms was ~50% higher in individuals taking 5 versus 0 medications with PDSS (0.36 vs. 0.24).

No corresponding associations were found for medications without PDSS.

The results were even stronger when the researchers repeated their adjusted regression analyses to focus on the 10 individual medications most associated with the severity of depressive symptoms. These were omeprazole, gabapentin, meloxicam, tramadol, ranitidine, baclofen, oxycodone, tizanidine, propranolol, and morphine, with an AOR of 0.42 [0.30-0.60] for no/minimal symptoms and 1.68 [1.24-2.27] for moderate/severe symptoms.

“Many widely prescribed medications, from antihypertensives, such as atenolol and metoprolol to corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone and triamcinolone, are associated with depression side effects,” said Dr. Olfson.

“These medications could interfere with recovery from depression. When available, consideration should be given to selecting a substitute with lower risk for depressive symptoms,” he said.
 

Role in treatment-resistant depression

In a comment, Dima Qato, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Hygeia Centennial chair and associate professor, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Los Angeles, said the study “is an important reminder that the use of medications with depressive symptoms side effects is increasingly common and may contribute to delays in responsiveness or worsen depressive symptoms among individuals being treated for depression.”

University of Southern California

Dr. Qato, who is also the director of the Program on Medicines and Public Health, USC School of Pharmacy, and was not involved with the study, recommended that clinicians “consider the role of medications with depression side effects when evaluating patients with treatment-resistant depression.”

The study was not supported by any funding agency. Dr. Olfson and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Qato is a consultant for the Public Citizen Health Research Group.

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

Patients with “treatment-resistant depression” may be taking other medications with side effects that interfere with antidepressant efficacy.

Investigators studied over 800 patients who were taking antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD) and found that close to two-thirds were taking at least one nonpsychiatric medication with potential depressive symptom side effects (PDSS), more than 30% were taking two or more such medications, and 20% at least three such medications.

These medications, which included antihypertensive medications and corticosteroids, among others, were associated with higher odds of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, compared with medications without PDSS.

“When evaluating the reasons for inadequate response to treatment for depression, clinicians should consider whether their patient is also receiving a nonpsychiatric medication with a potential for depressive symptom side effects,” study investigator Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Columbia University

Previous research limited

“In earlier research, we found that people who were taking medications with a potential to cause depressive symptom side effects were at increased risk of depression, especially those adults who were taking more than one of these medications,” said Dr. Olfson.

This finding led Dr. Olfson and his team to “wonder whether the risks of depressive symptoms associated with these medications extended to people who were being actively treated with antidepressants for depression.”

To investigate, they turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the United States general population.

The study was based on the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 waves and included 885 adults who reported using antidepressant medications for greater than or equal to 6 weeks for depression and whose depression could be ascertained.

Prescription medications with PDSS were identified through Micromedex, whose accuracy is “established” and primarily based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s labeled side effects.

Nonantidepressant psychiatric medications and medications for Alzheimer’s disease or substance use disorders were not included in the analysis.

Antidepressant-treated MDD was defined as taking an antidepressant for MDD for greater than or equal to 6 weeks. Depressive symptoms were ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) with a score of less than 5 representing no/minimal depressive symptoms and a score of greater than or equal to 10 indicating moderate/severe symptoms.

Other variables included self-reported sex, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and common chronic medical conditions such as hypertension, arthritis, lung disease, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
 

Recovery interrupted

Of the patients in the study treated with antidepressants, most were female, greater than or equal to 50 years, non-Hispanic White, and with a college education (70.55, 62.0%, 81.7%, and 69.4%, respectively).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were used by 67.9% of participants with MDD. Most had been on the same antidepressant medication for a “long time,” the authors report, with 79.2% and 67.8% taking them for greater than 1 year and greater than 2 years, respectively.

Despite the large number of patients on antidepressants, only 43.0% scored in the no/minimal symptoms range, based on the PHQ-9, while 28.4% scored in the moderate/severe range.

Most patients (85%) took at least one medication for medical conditions, with the majority medications with PDSS: 66.7% took at least one medication with PDSS, 37.3% took at least two, 21.6% took at least three, 10.7% took at least four, and 4.9% took at least five.

Almost 75% were using greater than or equal to 1 medication without PDSS, and about 50% were using greater than 1.

The number of medications with PDSS was significantly associated with lower odds of no/minimal depressive symptoms (AOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]; P < .001) and higher odds of moderate/severe symptoms (AOR, 1.14 [1.004-1.29]; P = .044).

“The predicted probability of no/minimal symptoms in those taking 5 medications with PDSS was less than half the predicted probability in those taking no medications with PDSS (0.23 vs. 0.52),” the authors report.

Conversely, the predicted probability of moderate/severe symptoms was ~50% higher in individuals taking 5 versus 0 medications with PDSS (0.36 vs. 0.24).

No corresponding associations were found for medications without PDSS.

The results were even stronger when the researchers repeated their adjusted regression analyses to focus on the 10 individual medications most associated with the severity of depressive symptoms. These were omeprazole, gabapentin, meloxicam, tramadol, ranitidine, baclofen, oxycodone, tizanidine, propranolol, and morphine, with an AOR of 0.42 [0.30-0.60] for no/minimal symptoms and 1.68 [1.24-2.27] for moderate/severe symptoms.

“Many widely prescribed medications, from antihypertensives, such as atenolol and metoprolol to corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone and triamcinolone, are associated with depression side effects,” said Dr. Olfson.

“These medications could interfere with recovery from depression. When available, consideration should be given to selecting a substitute with lower risk for depressive symptoms,” he said.
 

Role in treatment-resistant depression

In a comment, Dima Qato, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Hygeia Centennial chair and associate professor, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Los Angeles, said the study “is an important reminder that the use of medications with depressive symptoms side effects is increasingly common and may contribute to delays in responsiveness or worsen depressive symptoms among individuals being treated for depression.”

University of Southern California

Dr. Qato, who is also the director of the Program on Medicines and Public Health, USC School of Pharmacy, and was not involved with the study, recommended that clinicians “consider the role of medications with depression side effects when evaluating patients with treatment-resistant depression.”

The study was not supported by any funding agency. Dr. Olfson and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Qato is a consultant for the Public Citizen Health Research Group.

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

TOPLINE

Patients who received zuranolone 50 mg/d demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those who received placebo, with a rapid onset of effect.

METHODOLOGY

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted filing of a new drug application for zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid that targets g-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABAAR), for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression.

The study included 543 mostly White female patients with MDD. The mean age of the patients was 40 years. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral zuranolone 50 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days.

About 30% of patients were taking an antidepressant.

The primary endpoint was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score at day 15.
 

TAKEAWAY

The zuranolone group showed significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group (least square mean [LSM] change on HAM-D, –14.1, vs. –12.3; P = .01; Cohen’s d = 0.23).

Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Results favored zuranolone regardless of the use of antidepressant therapies.

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in anxiety symptoms compared to the patients who received placebo.

The drug was well tolerated, and there were no new safety findings. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence and headache. There was no weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, or increased suicidal ideation or behavior.
 

IN PRACTICE

The study adds to evidence suggesting zuranolone is a promising novel therapy for treating MDD, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was conducted by Anita H. Clayton, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues. It was published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS

The study was short term, and the patient population was severely depressed at study entry, which may limit application to those with mild or moderate symptoms. There was a robust placebo response, possibly partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an increase in depressive symptoms in the U.S. population, and so frequent in-person visits may have led to an improvement in symptoms even if the patient was receiving placebo.

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen.

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

TOPLINE

Patients who received zuranolone 50 mg/d demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those who received placebo, with a rapid onset of effect.

METHODOLOGY

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted filing of a new drug application for zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid that targets g-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABAAR), for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression.

The study included 543 mostly White female patients with MDD. The mean age of the patients was 40 years. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral zuranolone 50 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days.

About 30% of patients were taking an antidepressant.

The primary endpoint was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score at day 15.
 

TAKEAWAY

The zuranolone group showed significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group (least square mean [LSM] change on HAM-D, –14.1, vs. –12.3; P = .01; Cohen’s d = 0.23).

Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Results favored zuranolone regardless of the use of antidepressant therapies.

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in anxiety symptoms compared to the patients who received placebo.

The drug was well tolerated, and there were no new safety findings. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence and headache. There was no weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, or increased suicidal ideation or behavior.
 

IN PRACTICE

The study adds to evidence suggesting zuranolone is a promising novel therapy for treating MDD, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was conducted by Anita H. Clayton, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues. It was published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS

The study was short term, and the patient population was severely depressed at study entry, which may limit application to those with mild or moderate symptoms. There was a robust placebo response, possibly partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an increase in depressive symptoms in the U.S. population, and so frequent in-person visits may have led to an improvement in symptoms even if the patient was receiving placebo.

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen.

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

TOPLINE

Patients who received zuranolone 50 mg/d demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those who received placebo, with a rapid onset of effect.

METHODOLOGY

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted filing of a new drug application for zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid that targets g-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABAAR), for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression.

The study included 543 mostly White female patients with MDD. The mean age of the patients was 40 years. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral zuranolone 50 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days.

About 30% of patients were taking an antidepressant.

The primary endpoint was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score at day 15.
 

TAKEAWAY

The zuranolone group showed significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group (least square mean [LSM] change on HAM-D, –14.1, vs. –12.3; P = .01; Cohen’s d = 0.23).

Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Results favored zuranolone regardless of the use of antidepressant therapies.

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in anxiety symptoms compared to the patients who received placebo.

The drug was well tolerated, and there were no new safety findings. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence and headache. There was no weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, or increased suicidal ideation or behavior.
 

IN PRACTICE

The study adds to evidence suggesting zuranolone is a promising novel therapy for treating MDD, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was conducted by Anita H. Clayton, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues. It was published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS

The study was short term, and the patient population was severely depressed at study entry, which may limit application to those with mild or moderate symptoms. There was a robust placebo response, possibly partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an increase in depressive symptoms in the U.S. population, and so frequent in-person visits may have led to an improvement in symptoms even if the patient was receiving placebo.

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen.

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

Could glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as semaglutide – approved as Ozempic to treat type 2 diabetes and as Wegovy to treat obesity, both from Novo Nordisk – also curb addictions and compulsive behaviors?

As demand for semaglutide for weight loss grew following approval of Wegovy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021, anecdotal reports of unexpected potential added benefits also began to surface.

Some patients taking these drugs for type 2 diabetes or weight loss also lost interest in addictive and compulsive behaviors such as drinking alcohol, smoking, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking, as reported in articles in the New York Times and The Atlantic, among others.

There is also some preliminary research to support these observations.

This news organization invited three experts to weigh in.
 

Recent and upcoming studies

The senior author of a recent randomized controlled trial of 127 patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), Anders Fink-Jensen, MD, said: “I hope that GLP-1 analogs in the future can be used against AUD, but before that can happen, several GLP-1 trials [are needed to] prove an effect on alcohol intake.”

His study involved patients who received exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon, AstraZeneca), the first-generation GLP-1 agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, over 26 weeks, but treatment did not reduce the number of heavy drinking days (the primary outcome), compared with placebo.  

However, in post hoc, exploratory analyses, heavy drinking days and total alcohol intake were significantly reduced in the subgroup of patients with AUD and obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m²).

The participants were also shown pictures of alcohol or neutral subjects while they underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging. Those who had received exenatide, compared with placebo, had significantly less activation of brain reward centers when shown the pictures of alcohol.

“Something is happening in the brain and activation of the reward center is hampered by the GLP-1 compound,” Dr. Fink-Jensen, a clinical psychologist at the Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, remarked in an email.

“If patients with AUD already fulfill the criteria for semaglutide (or other GLP-1 analogs) by having type 2 diabetes and/or a BMI over 30 kg/m², they can of course use the compound right now,” he noted.

His team is also beginning a study in patients with AUD and a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² to investigate the effects on alcohol intake of semaglutide up to 2.4 mg weekly, the maximum dose currently approved for obesity in the United States.

“Based on the potency of exenatide and semaglutide,” Dr. Fink-Jensen said, “we expect that semaglutide will cause a stronger reduction in alcohol intake” than exenatide.

Animal studies have also shown that GLP-1 agonists suppress alcohol-induced reward, alcohol intake, motivation to consume alcohol, alcohol seeking, and relapse drinking of alcohol, Elisabet Jerlhag Holm, PhD, noted.

Interestingly, these agents also suppress the reward, intake, and motivation to consume other addictive drugs like cocaine, amphetamine, nicotine, and some opioids, Jerlhag Holm, professor, department of pharmacology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, noted in an email.

In a recently published preclinical study, her group provides evidence to help explain anecdotal reports from patients with obesity treated with semaglutide who claim they also reduced their alcohol intake. In the study, semaglutide both reduced alcohol intake (and relapse-like drinking) and decreased body weight of rats of both sexes.

“Future research should explore the possibility of semaglutide decreasing alcohol intake in patients with AUD, particularly those who are overweight,” said Prof. Holm.

“AUD is a heterogenous disorder, and one medication is most likely not helpful for all AUD patients,” she added. “Therefore, an arsenal of different medications is beneficial when treating AUD.”

Janice J. Hwang, MD, MHS, echoed these thoughts: “Anecdotally, there are a lot of reports from patients (and in the news) that this class of medication [GLP-1 agonists] impacts cravings and could impact addictive behaviors.”

“I would say, overall, the jury is still out,” as to whether anecdotal reports of GLP-1 agonists curbing addictions will be borne out in randomized controlled trials.

“I think it is much too early to tell” whether these drugs might be approved for treating addictions without more solid clinical trial data, noted Dr. Hwang, who is an associate professor of medicine and chief, division of endocrinology and metabolism, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Meanwhile, another research group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by psychiatrist Christian Hendershot, PhD, is conducting a clinical trial in 48 participants with AUD who are also smokers.

They aim to determine if patients who receive semaglutide at escalating doses (0.25 mg to 1.0 mg per week via subcutaneous injection) over 9 weeks will consume less alcohol (the primary outcome) and smoke less (a secondary outcome) than those who receive a sham placebo injection. Results are expected in October 2023.

Dr. Fink-Jensen has received an unrestricted research grant from Novo Nordisk to investigate the effects of GLP-1 receptor stimulation on weight gain and metabolic disturbances in patients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic.

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

Could glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as semaglutide – approved as Ozempic to treat type 2 diabetes and as Wegovy to treat obesity, both from Novo Nordisk – also curb addictions and compulsive behaviors?

As demand for semaglutide for weight loss grew following approval of Wegovy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021, anecdotal reports of unexpected potential added benefits also began to surface.

Some patients taking these drugs for type 2 diabetes or weight loss also lost interest in addictive and compulsive behaviors such as drinking alcohol, smoking, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking, as reported in articles in the New York Times and The Atlantic, among others.

There is also some preliminary research to support these observations.

This news organization invited three experts to weigh in.
 

Recent and upcoming studies

The senior author of a recent randomized controlled trial of 127 patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), Anders Fink-Jensen, MD, said: “I hope that GLP-1 analogs in the future can be used against AUD, but before that can happen, several GLP-1 trials [are needed to] prove an effect on alcohol intake.”

His study involved patients who received exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon, AstraZeneca), the first-generation GLP-1 agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, over 26 weeks, but treatment did not reduce the number of heavy drinking days (the primary outcome), compared with placebo.  

However, in post hoc, exploratory analyses, heavy drinking days and total alcohol intake were significantly reduced in the subgroup of patients with AUD and obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m²).

The participants were also shown pictures of alcohol or neutral subjects while they underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging. Those who had received exenatide, compared with placebo, had significantly less activation of brain reward centers when shown the pictures of alcohol.

“Something is happening in the brain and activation of the reward center is hampered by the GLP-1 compound,” Dr. Fink-Jensen, a clinical psychologist at the Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, remarked in an email.

“If patients with AUD already fulfill the criteria for semaglutide (or other GLP-1 analogs) by having type 2 diabetes and/or a BMI over 30 kg/m², they can of course use the compound right now,” he noted.

His team is also beginning a study in patients with AUD and a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² to investigate the effects on alcohol intake of semaglutide up to 2.4 mg weekly, the maximum dose currently approved for obesity in the United States.

“Based on the potency of exenatide and semaglutide,” Dr. Fink-Jensen said, “we expect that semaglutide will cause a stronger reduction in alcohol intake” than exenatide.

Animal studies have also shown that GLP-1 agonists suppress alcohol-induced reward, alcohol intake, motivation to consume alcohol, alcohol seeking, and relapse drinking of alcohol, Elisabet Jerlhag Holm, PhD, noted.

Interestingly, these agents also suppress the reward, intake, and motivation to consume other addictive drugs like cocaine, amphetamine, nicotine, and some opioids, Jerlhag Holm, professor, department of pharmacology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, noted in an email.

In a recently published preclinical study, her group provides evidence to help explain anecdotal reports from patients with obesity treated with semaglutide who claim they also reduced their alcohol intake. In the study, semaglutide both reduced alcohol intake (and relapse-like drinking) and decreased body weight of rats of both sexes.

“Future research should explore the possibility of semaglutide decreasing alcohol intake in patients with AUD, particularly those who are overweight,” said Prof. Holm.

“AUD is a heterogenous disorder, and one medication is most likely not helpful for all AUD patients,” she added. “Therefore, an arsenal of different medications is beneficial when treating AUD.”

Janice J. Hwang, MD, MHS, echoed these thoughts: “Anecdotally, there are a lot of reports from patients (and in the news) that this class of medication [GLP-1 agonists] impacts cravings and could impact addictive behaviors.”

“I would say, overall, the jury is still out,” as to whether anecdotal reports of GLP-1 agonists curbing addictions will be borne out in randomized controlled trials.

“I think it is much too early to tell” whether these drugs might be approved for treating addictions without more solid clinical trial data, noted Dr. Hwang, who is an associate professor of medicine and chief, division of endocrinology and metabolism, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Meanwhile, another research group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by psychiatrist Christian Hendershot, PhD, is conducting a clinical trial in 48 participants with AUD who are also smokers.

They aim to determine if patients who receive semaglutide at escalating doses (0.25 mg to 1.0 mg per week via subcutaneous injection) over 9 weeks will consume less alcohol (the primary outcome) and smoke less (a secondary outcome) than those who receive a sham placebo injection. Results are expected in October 2023.

Dr. Fink-Jensen has received an unrestricted research grant from Novo Nordisk to investigate the effects of GLP-1 receptor stimulation on weight gain and metabolic disturbances in patients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic.

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

Could glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as semaglutide – approved as Ozempic to treat type 2 diabetes and as Wegovy to treat obesity, both from Novo Nordisk – also curb addictions and compulsive behaviors?

As demand for semaglutide for weight loss grew following approval of Wegovy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021, anecdotal reports of unexpected potential added benefits also began to surface.

Some patients taking these drugs for type 2 diabetes or weight loss also lost interest in addictive and compulsive behaviors such as drinking alcohol, smoking, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking, as reported in articles in the New York Times and The Atlantic, among others.

There is also some preliminary research to support these observations.

This news organization invited three experts to weigh in.
 

Recent and upcoming studies

The senior author of a recent randomized controlled trial of 127 patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), Anders Fink-Jensen, MD, said: “I hope that GLP-1 analogs in the future can be used against AUD, but before that can happen, several GLP-1 trials [are needed to] prove an effect on alcohol intake.”

His study involved patients who received exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon, AstraZeneca), the first-generation GLP-1 agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, over 26 weeks, but treatment did not reduce the number of heavy drinking days (the primary outcome), compared with placebo.  

However, in post hoc, exploratory analyses, heavy drinking days and total alcohol intake were significantly reduced in the subgroup of patients with AUD and obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m²).

The participants were also shown pictures of alcohol or neutral subjects while they underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging. Those who had received exenatide, compared with placebo, had significantly less activation of brain reward centers when shown the pictures of alcohol.

“Something is happening in the brain and activation of the reward center is hampered by the GLP-1 compound,” Dr. Fink-Jensen, a clinical psychologist at the Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, remarked in an email.

“If patients with AUD already fulfill the criteria for semaglutide (or other GLP-1 analogs) by having type 2 diabetes and/or a BMI over 30 kg/m², they can of course use the compound right now,” he noted.

His team is also beginning a study in patients with AUD and a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² to investigate the effects on alcohol intake of semaglutide up to 2.4 mg weekly, the maximum dose currently approved for obesity in the United States.

“Based on the potency of exenatide and semaglutide,” Dr. Fink-Jensen said, “we expect that semaglutide will cause a stronger reduction in alcohol intake” than exenatide.

Animal studies have also shown that GLP-1 agonists suppress alcohol-induced reward, alcohol intake, motivation to consume alcohol, alcohol seeking, and relapse drinking of alcohol, Elisabet Jerlhag Holm, PhD, noted.

Interestingly, these agents also suppress the reward, intake, and motivation to consume other addictive drugs like cocaine, amphetamine, nicotine, and some opioids, Jerlhag Holm, professor, department of pharmacology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, noted in an email.

In a recently published preclinical study, her group provides evidence to help explain anecdotal reports from patients with obesity treated with semaglutide who claim they also reduced their alcohol intake. In the study, semaglutide both reduced alcohol intake (and relapse-like drinking) and decreased body weight of rats of both sexes.

“Future research should explore the possibility of semaglutide decreasing alcohol intake in patients with AUD, particularly those who are overweight,” said Prof. Holm.

“AUD is a heterogenous disorder, and one medication is most likely not helpful for all AUD patients,” she added. “Therefore, an arsenal of different medications is beneficial when treating AUD.”

Janice J. Hwang, MD, MHS, echoed these thoughts: “Anecdotally, there are a lot of reports from patients (and in the news) that this class of medication [GLP-1 agonists] impacts cravings and could impact addictive behaviors.”

“I would say, overall, the jury is still out,” as to whether anecdotal reports of GLP-1 agonists curbing addictions will be borne out in randomized controlled trials.

“I think it is much too early to tell” whether these drugs might be approved for treating addictions without more solid clinical trial data, noted Dr. Hwang, who is an associate professor of medicine and chief, division of endocrinology and metabolism, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Meanwhile, another research group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by psychiatrist Christian Hendershot, PhD, is conducting a clinical trial in 48 participants with AUD who are also smokers.

They aim to determine if patients who receive semaglutide at escalating doses (0.25 mg to 1.0 mg per week via subcutaneous injection) over 9 weeks will consume less alcohol (the primary outcome) and smoke less (a secondary outcome) than those who receive a sham placebo injection. Results are expected in October 2023.

Dr. Fink-Jensen has received an unrestricted research grant from Novo Nordisk to investigate the effects of GLP-1 receptor stimulation on weight gain and metabolic disturbances in patients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

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

DENVER – Taking ozanimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at the same time as taking antidepressants that increase serotonin levels does not appear to increase the risk for hypertension or any other adverse events related to serotonin toxicity, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“Depression and anxiety are prevalent comorbidities occurring in up to 54% of patients with multiple sclerosis, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are first-line treatments for depression and anxiety disorders,” Robert T. Naismith, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and his colleagues reported.

“Coadministration of ozanimod with drugs that increase serotonin could hypothetically lead to serotonin accumulation,” which can increase the likelihood of hypertension. U.S. prescribing information recommends that patients taking both ozanimod and medications that increase norepinephrine or serotonin be monitored for hypertension, an adverse reaction reported in 3.9% of patients receiving ozanimod in the phase 3 trials for relapsing MS.
 

Clarifying the risk

“It’s important to be aware of potential drug interactions and risks from MS disease modifying therapies,” Lauren Gluck, MD, an assistant professor and director of the division of multiple sclerosis at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview. Dr. Gluck was not involved in this study but described some of the history that revealed the value of this type of research. For example, the first sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator approved for MS, fingolimod (Gilenya), has a risk of cardiac conduction dysfunction with QTc prolongation, so people taking fingolimod with other medications that prolong QTc, such as SSRIs, need additional monitoring.

“Ozanimod is a newer, more selective S1PR modulator that initially raised concerns about interaction with serotonin-increasing drugs based on in vitro studies,” Dr. Gluck said. “This could mean that people on ozanimod and other serotonin-increasing medicine could be at risk for dangerous events like serotonin syndrome. However, in vitro studies do not always translate to how something affects the human body, so it is not clear how much risk truly exists.”
 

Examining open-label extension trial data

The researchers therefore evaluated the safety of taking ozanimod and SSRIs or SNRIs in a subset of patients with relapsing MS who participated in the DAYBREAK open-label extension trial. The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a with 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over one week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for an average of just under 5 years of follow-up. Nearly all the participants (99.4%) were White, and two-thirds (66.5%) were female.

The researchers searched the study data for terms related to serotonin toxicity and compared the rates of adverse events related with those terms and the rates of hypertension in the 274 participants who were and the 2,032 participant who were not taking antidepressants at the same time as ozanimod.

They found that 13.9% of patients taking SSRIs or SNRIs experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event related to their search criteria, compared with 17.7% of patients not taking SSRIs or SNRIs. Similarly, 9.2% of trial participants not taking SSRIs or SNRIs had hypertension, compared with 4.7% of participants who were taking antidepressants. The authors further noted that “similar trends were observed when 6 weeks after the end date of concomitant SSRIs/SNRI use were included in the ‘on SSRI/SNRI’ analysis period.”

When the researchers searched specifically for three terms directly related to serotonin toxicity – “serotonin syndrome,” “neuroleptic malignant syndrome,” and “hyperthermia malignant” – they did not find any patients who had treatment-emergent adverse events related to those terms.

“SSRIs/SNRIs were freely allowed as concomitant medications in the DAYBREAK open-label extension, and among the patients from SUNBEAM or RADIANCE who were followed for up to 6 years, there have been no reported safety concerns during the concurrent administration of serotonergic antidepressants and ozanimod in patients with relapsing MS as of the data cutoff,” concluded the authors, though they also noted that the overall rate of SSRI and SNRI use was low in the extension trial.
 

A reassuring finding for clinicians and patients alike

“It is reassuring, if not unexpected, that there were no clinically significant rates of symptoms associated with excess serotonin in patients on ozanimod and SSRI/SNRIs,” Dr. Gluck commented. “These findings are important for both clinicians and patients – they can help [both] feel comfortable considering ozanimod if SSRI/SNRIs are already being used. There is also freedom to use SSRI/SNRIs for symptom management in patients already on ozanimod.”

The research was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Naismith reported consulting for Abata Therapeutics, Banner Life Sciences, BeiGene, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech, Genzyme, GW Therapeutics, Janssen, Horizon Therapeutics, Lundbeck, NervGen, and TG Therapeutics. Six other authors reported disclosures for various pharmaceutical companies, and six other authors are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Gluck has served on advisory boards with Genentech and EMD Serono.
 

DENVER – Taking ozanimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at the same time as taking antidepressants that increase serotonin levels does not appear to increase the risk for hypertension or any other adverse events related to serotonin toxicity, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“Depression and anxiety are prevalent comorbidities occurring in up to 54% of patients with multiple sclerosis, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are first-line treatments for depression and anxiety disorders,” Robert T. Naismith, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and his colleagues reported.

“Coadministration of ozanimod with drugs that increase serotonin could hypothetically lead to serotonin accumulation,” which can increase the likelihood of hypertension. U.S. prescribing information recommends that patients taking both ozanimod and medications that increase norepinephrine or serotonin be monitored for hypertension, an adverse reaction reported in 3.9% of patients receiving ozanimod in the phase 3 trials for relapsing MS.
 

Clarifying the risk

“It’s important to be aware of potential drug interactions and risks from MS disease modifying therapies,” Lauren Gluck, MD, an assistant professor and director of the division of multiple sclerosis at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview. Dr. Gluck was not involved in this study but described some of the history that revealed the value of this type of research. For example, the first sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator approved for MS, fingolimod (Gilenya), has a risk of cardiac conduction dysfunction with QTc prolongation, so people taking fingolimod with other medications that prolong QTc, such as SSRIs, need additional monitoring.

“Ozanimod is a newer, more selective S1PR modulator that initially raised concerns about interaction with serotonin-increasing drugs based on in vitro studies,” Dr. Gluck said. “This could mean that people on ozanimod and other serotonin-increasing medicine could be at risk for dangerous events like serotonin syndrome. However, in vitro studies do not always translate to how something affects the human body, so it is not clear how much risk truly exists.”
 

Examining open-label extension trial data

The researchers therefore evaluated the safety of taking ozanimod and SSRIs or SNRIs in a subset of patients with relapsing MS who participated in the DAYBREAK open-label extension trial. The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a with 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over one week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for an average of just under 5 years of follow-up. Nearly all the participants (99.4%) were White, and two-thirds (66.5%) were female.

The researchers searched the study data for terms related to serotonin toxicity and compared the rates of adverse events related with those terms and the rates of hypertension in the 274 participants who were and the 2,032 participant who were not taking antidepressants at the same time as ozanimod.

They found that 13.9% of patients taking SSRIs or SNRIs experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event related to their search criteria, compared with 17.7% of patients not taking SSRIs or SNRIs. Similarly, 9.2% of trial participants not taking SSRIs or SNRIs had hypertension, compared with 4.7% of participants who were taking antidepressants. The authors further noted that “similar trends were observed when 6 weeks after the end date of concomitant SSRIs/SNRI use were included in the ‘on SSRI/SNRI’ analysis period.”

When the researchers searched specifically for three terms directly related to serotonin toxicity – “serotonin syndrome,” “neuroleptic malignant syndrome,” and “hyperthermia malignant” – they did not find any patients who had treatment-emergent adverse events related to those terms.

“SSRIs/SNRIs were freely allowed as concomitant medications in the DAYBREAK open-label extension, and among the patients from SUNBEAM or RADIANCE who were followed for up to 6 years, there have been no reported safety concerns during the concurrent administration of serotonergic antidepressants and ozanimod in patients with relapsing MS as of the data cutoff,” concluded the authors, though they also noted that the overall rate of SSRI and SNRI use was low in the extension trial.
 

A reassuring finding for clinicians and patients alike

“It is reassuring, if not unexpected, that there were no clinically significant rates of symptoms associated with excess serotonin in patients on ozanimod and SSRI/SNRIs,” Dr. Gluck commented. “These findings are important for both clinicians and patients – they can help [both] feel comfortable considering ozanimod if SSRI/SNRIs are already being used. There is also freedom to use SSRI/SNRIs for symptom management in patients already on ozanimod.”

The research was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Naismith reported consulting for Abata Therapeutics, Banner Life Sciences, BeiGene, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech, Genzyme, GW Therapeutics, Janssen, Horizon Therapeutics, Lundbeck, NervGen, and TG Therapeutics. Six other authors reported disclosures for various pharmaceutical companies, and six other authors are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Gluck has served on advisory boards with Genentech and EMD Serono.
 

DENVER – Taking ozanimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at the same time as taking antidepressants that increase serotonin levels does not appear to increase the risk for hypertension or any other adverse events related to serotonin toxicity, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“Depression and anxiety are prevalent comorbidities occurring in up to 54% of patients with multiple sclerosis, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are first-line treatments for depression and anxiety disorders,” Robert T. Naismith, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and his colleagues reported.

“Coadministration of ozanimod with drugs that increase serotonin could hypothetically lead to serotonin accumulation,” which can increase the likelihood of hypertension. U.S. prescribing information recommends that patients taking both ozanimod and medications that increase norepinephrine or serotonin be monitored for hypertension, an adverse reaction reported in 3.9% of patients receiving ozanimod in the phase 3 trials for relapsing MS.
 

Clarifying the risk

“It’s important to be aware of potential drug interactions and risks from MS disease modifying therapies,” Lauren Gluck, MD, an assistant professor and director of the division of multiple sclerosis at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview. Dr. Gluck was not involved in this study but described some of the history that revealed the value of this type of research. For example, the first sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator approved for MS, fingolimod (Gilenya), has a risk of cardiac conduction dysfunction with QTc prolongation, so people taking fingolimod with other medications that prolong QTc, such as SSRIs, need additional monitoring.

“Ozanimod is a newer, more selective S1PR modulator that initially raised concerns about interaction with serotonin-increasing drugs based on in vitro studies,” Dr. Gluck said. “This could mean that people on ozanimod and other serotonin-increasing medicine could be at risk for dangerous events like serotonin syndrome. However, in vitro studies do not always translate to how something affects the human body, so it is not clear how much risk truly exists.”
 

Examining open-label extension trial data

The researchers therefore evaluated the safety of taking ozanimod and SSRIs or SNRIs in a subset of patients with relapsing MS who participated in the DAYBREAK open-label extension trial. The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a with 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over one week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for an average of just under 5 years of follow-up. Nearly all the participants (99.4%) were White, and two-thirds (66.5%) were female.

The researchers searched the study data for terms related to serotonin toxicity and compared the rates of adverse events related with those terms and the rates of hypertension in the 274 participants who were and the 2,032 participant who were not taking antidepressants at the same time as ozanimod.

They found that 13.9% of patients taking SSRIs or SNRIs experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event related to their search criteria, compared with 17.7% of patients not taking SSRIs or SNRIs. Similarly, 9.2% of trial participants not taking SSRIs or SNRIs had hypertension, compared with 4.7% of participants who were taking antidepressants. The authors further noted that “similar trends were observed when 6 weeks after the end date of concomitant SSRIs/SNRI use were included in the ‘on SSRI/SNRI’ analysis period.”

When the researchers searched specifically for three terms directly related to serotonin toxicity – “serotonin syndrome,” “neuroleptic malignant syndrome,” and “hyperthermia malignant” – they did not find any patients who had treatment-emergent adverse events related to those terms.

“SSRIs/SNRIs were freely allowed as concomitant medications in the DAYBREAK open-label extension, and among the patients from SUNBEAM or RADIANCE who were followed for up to 6 years, there have been no reported safety concerns during the concurrent administration of serotonergic antidepressants and ozanimod in patients with relapsing MS as of the data cutoff,” concluded the authors, though they also noted that the overall rate of SSRI and SNRI use was low in the extension trial.
 

A reassuring finding for clinicians and patients alike

“It is reassuring, if not unexpected, that there were no clinically significant rates of symptoms associated with excess serotonin in patients on ozanimod and SSRI/SNRIs,” Dr. Gluck commented. “These findings are important for both clinicians and patients – they can help [both] feel comfortable considering ozanimod if SSRI/SNRIs are already being used. There is also freedom to use SSRI/SNRIs for symptom management in patients already on ozanimod.”

The research was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Naismith reported consulting for Abata Therapeutics, Banner Life Sciences, BeiGene, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech, Genzyme, GW Therapeutics, Janssen, Horizon Therapeutics, Lundbeck, NervGen, and TG Therapeutics. Six other authors reported disclosures for various pharmaceutical companies, and six other authors are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Gluck has served on advisory boards with Genentech and EMD Serono.
 

Members of a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee have unanimously concluded that a postmarketing study confirms the benefit of the Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai), paving the way for traditional approval.

“Overall, the study demonstrated clearly that this is an effective treatment,” said acting chair Robert C. Alexander, MD, chief scientific officer, Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and research professor, department of psychiatry, University of Arizona, Phoenix, during the meeting.

An intravenous infusion targeting amyloid-beta, lecanemab received accelerated FDA approved earlier in 2023 for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The company was required to complete a confirmatory study to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit.

The Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee met to discuss this phase 3 study (CLARITY-AD). The multicenter, double-blind study included 1,795 patients (mean age, 71 years) who had mild cognitive impairment caused by AD or mild AD dementia.
 

Delayed progression

Study participants had a broad range of comorbidities, and many were concomitantly receiving other medications. Black people were underrepresented in the study at just 3% of the total cohort.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly. In addition to a placebo-controlled period and safety follow-up, the study has an ongoing extension phase of up to 4 years.

The study met its primary endpoint, showing a highly statistically significant 27% less decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes at 18 months (difference in adjusted mean, –0.45; 95% CI, –0.67 to –0.23; P = .00005).

This was supported by a significant 26% difference on the AD Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 14 tasks (ADAS-Cog 14).

The drug also affected function, with a 37% decrease, compared with placebo, on the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Committee members heard that the results signal delays in disease progression by about 5 months, giving patients more time to live independently and participate in hobbies and interests.

Patients who received the active drug also experienced quality of life benefits. Compared with patients who received placebo, those who took lecanemab had 49% less decline as measured with the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions scale and 56% less decline as measured by the Quality of Life in AD scale, and caregivers reported less burden.

Lecanemab also affected biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration, providing a biological basis for the treatment effects consistent with slowing of disease progression.
 

Unanimous support

All six committee members agreed by vote that the study provides evidence of clinical benefit. They variously descried the study and results as “robust,” “compelling,” “well conducted,” “clear and consistent,” and “clinically meaningful.”

In the active treatment group, there was a higher incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), which can be serious and life-threatening but are usually asymptomatic. In this study, most ARIAs had resolved by 3 months.

Deaths occurred in 0.8% of the placebo and 0.7% of the treatment group. Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., noted that the numbers of deaths and serious adverse events were “quite similar” in the two groups.

“And for serious ARIA, there was an imbalance favoring placebo, but overall, these were pretty rare,” he said.
 

Subgroup concerns

Committee members discussed the risk/benefit profile for three subgroups of patients – those with apolipoprotein E4 (apo E4) allele, patients taking an anticoagulant, and those with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA).

In the apo E4 group, the study’s primary endpoint did not favor the drug, but secondary endpoints did.

“I think the general feeling [for apo E4 status] is that the risk/benefit still remains favorable, especially when looking across multiple endpoints,” said Dr. Alexander.

However, some members supported recommending genetic testing before initiating the drug.

The views were more diverse for the use of lecanemab in the presence of an anticoagulant, which may increase the risk for cerebral hemorrhage. Some committee members strongly recommended that these patients not receive lecanemab, while others highlighted the need for more information, owing to uncertainties about the risks.

With respect to CAA, most members supported the idea of considering use of the drug in the presence of this condition, but only after discussing the risks with patients and their families and in the presence of a robust reporting system.

An Alzheimer’s Association representative was in attendance during the public hearing portion of the meeting to express support for traditional approval of lecanemab for people with early AD.

The association strongly favors full Medicare coverage for FDA-approved AD treatments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has determined that AD treatments receiving traditional FDA approval will be covered if clinicians register and enter data in a registry.

“While this is an important signal that CMS wants to improve access to FDA-approved treatments, registry as a condition of coverage is an unnecessary and potentially harmful barrier,” said the Alzheimer’s Association in a press release following the meeting.

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

Members of a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee have unanimously concluded that a postmarketing study confirms the benefit of the Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai), paving the way for traditional approval.

“Overall, the study demonstrated clearly that this is an effective treatment,” said acting chair Robert C. Alexander, MD, chief scientific officer, Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and research professor, department of psychiatry, University of Arizona, Phoenix, during the meeting.

An intravenous infusion targeting amyloid-beta, lecanemab received accelerated FDA approved earlier in 2023 for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The company was required to complete a confirmatory study to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit.

The Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee met to discuss this phase 3 study (CLARITY-AD). The multicenter, double-blind study included 1,795 patients (mean age, 71 years) who had mild cognitive impairment caused by AD or mild AD dementia.
 

Delayed progression

Study participants had a broad range of comorbidities, and many were concomitantly receiving other medications. Black people were underrepresented in the study at just 3% of the total cohort.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly. In addition to a placebo-controlled period and safety follow-up, the study has an ongoing extension phase of up to 4 years.

The study met its primary endpoint, showing a highly statistically significant 27% less decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes at 18 months (difference in adjusted mean, –0.45; 95% CI, –0.67 to –0.23; P = .00005).

This was supported by a significant 26% difference on the AD Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 14 tasks (ADAS-Cog 14).

The drug also affected function, with a 37% decrease, compared with placebo, on the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Committee members heard that the results signal delays in disease progression by about 5 months, giving patients more time to live independently and participate in hobbies and interests.

Patients who received the active drug also experienced quality of life benefits. Compared with patients who received placebo, those who took lecanemab had 49% less decline as measured with the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions scale and 56% less decline as measured by the Quality of Life in AD scale, and caregivers reported less burden.

Lecanemab also affected biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration, providing a biological basis for the treatment effects consistent with slowing of disease progression.
 

Unanimous support

All six committee members agreed by vote that the study provides evidence of clinical benefit. They variously descried the study and results as “robust,” “compelling,” “well conducted,” “clear and consistent,” and “clinically meaningful.”

In the active treatment group, there was a higher incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), which can be serious and life-threatening but are usually asymptomatic. In this study, most ARIAs had resolved by 3 months.

Deaths occurred in 0.8% of the placebo and 0.7% of the treatment group. Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., noted that the numbers of deaths and serious adverse events were “quite similar” in the two groups.

“And for serious ARIA, there was an imbalance favoring placebo, but overall, these were pretty rare,” he said.
 

Subgroup concerns

Committee members discussed the risk/benefit profile for three subgroups of patients – those with apolipoprotein E4 (apo E4) allele, patients taking an anticoagulant, and those with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA).

In the apo E4 group, the study’s primary endpoint did not favor the drug, but secondary endpoints did.

“I think the general feeling [for apo E4 status] is that the risk/benefit still remains favorable, especially when looking across multiple endpoints,” said Dr. Alexander.

However, some members supported recommending genetic testing before initiating the drug.

The views were more diverse for the use of lecanemab in the presence of an anticoagulant, which may increase the risk for cerebral hemorrhage. Some committee members strongly recommended that these patients not receive lecanemab, while others highlighted the need for more information, owing to uncertainties about the risks.

With respect to CAA, most members supported the idea of considering use of the drug in the presence of this condition, but only after discussing the risks with patients and their families and in the presence of a robust reporting system.

An Alzheimer’s Association representative was in attendance during the public hearing portion of the meeting to express support for traditional approval of lecanemab for people with early AD.

The association strongly favors full Medicare coverage for FDA-approved AD treatments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has determined that AD treatments receiving traditional FDA approval will be covered if clinicians register and enter data in a registry.

“While this is an important signal that CMS wants to improve access to FDA-approved treatments, registry as a condition of coverage is an unnecessary and potentially harmful barrier,” said the Alzheimer’s Association in a press release following the meeting.

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

Members of a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee have unanimously concluded that a postmarketing study confirms the benefit of the Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai), paving the way for traditional approval.

“Overall, the study demonstrated clearly that this is an effective treatment,” said acting chair Robert C. Alexander, MD, chief scientific officer, Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and research professor, department of psychiatry, University of Arizona, Phoenix, during the meeting.

An intravenous infusion targeting amyloid-beta, lecanemab received accelerated FDA approved earlier in 2023 for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The company was required to complete a confirmatory study to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit.

The Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee met to discuss this phase 3 study (CLARITY-AD). The multicenter, double-blind study included 1,795 patients (mean age, 71 years) who had mild cognitive impairment caused by AD or mild AD dementia.
 

Delayed progression

Study participants had a broad range of comorbidities, and many were concomitantly receiving other medications. Black people were underrepresented in the study at just 3% of the total cohort.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly. In addition to a placebo-controlled period and safety follow-up, the study has an ongoing extension phase of up to 4 years.

The study met its primary endpoint, showing a highly statistically significant 27% less decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes at 18 months (difference in adjusted mean, –0.45; 95% CI, –0.67 to –0.23; P = .00005).

This was supported by a significant 26% difference on the AD Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 14 tasks (ADAS-Cog 14).

The drug also affected function, with a 37% decrease, compared with placebo, on the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Committee members heard that the results signal delays in disease progression by about 5 months, giving patients more time to live independently and participate in hobbies and interests.

Patients who received the active drug also experienced quality of life benefits. Compared with patients who received placebo, those who took lecanemab had 49% less decline as measured with the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions scale and 56% less decline as measured by the Quality of Life in AD scale, and caregivers reported less burden.

Lecanemab also affected biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration, providing a biological basis for the treatment effects consistent with slowing of disease progression.
 

Unanimous support

All six committee members agreed by vote that the study provides evidence of clinical benefit. They variously descried the study and results as “robust,” “compelling,” “well conducted,” “clear and consistent,” and “clinically meaningful.”

In the active treatment group, there was a higher incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), which can be serious and life-threatening but are usually asymptomatic. In this study, most ARIAs had resolved by 3 months.

Deaths occurred in 0.8% of the placebo and 0.7% of the treatment group. Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., noted that the numbers of deaths and serious adverse events were “quite similar” in the two groups.

“And for serious ARIA, there was an imbalance favoring placebo, but overall, these were pretty rare,” he said.
 

Subgroup concerns

Committee members discussed the risk/benefit profile for three subgroups of patients – those with apolipoprotein E4 (apo E4) allele, patients taking an anticoagulant, and those with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA).

In the apo E4 group, the study’s primary endpoint did not favor the drug, but secondary endpoints did.

“I think the general feeling [for apo E4 status] is that the risk/benefit still remains favorable, especially when looking across multiple endpoints,” said Dr. Alexander.

However, some members supported recommending genetic testing before initiating the drug.

The views were more diverse for the use of lecanemab in the presence of an anticoagulant, which may increase the risk for cerebral hemorrhage. Some committee members strongly recommended that these patients not receive lecanemab, while others highlighted the need for more information, owing to uncertainties about the risks.

With respect to CAA, most members supported the idea of considering use of the drug in the presence of this condition, but only after discussing the risks with patients and their families and in the presence of a robust reporting system.

An Alzheimer’s Association representative was in attendance during the public hearing portion of the meeting to express support for traditional approval of lecanemab for people with early AD.

The association strongly favors full Medicare coverage for FDA-approved AD treatments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has determined that AD treatments receiving traditional FDA approval will be covered if clinicians register and enter data in a registry.

“While this is an important signal that CMS wants to improve access to FDA-approved treatments, registry as a condition of coverage is an unnecessary and potentially harmful barrier,” said the Alzheimer’s Association in a press release following the meeting.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – The patient at a Florida eating disorder clinic said she was eating plenty even though she acknowledged purging once a week. But her vitals told a different story: Her body mass index (BMI) was 12.2, down from 14.8 a couple of years before – a dangerously low value.

University of Florida

Determining capacity

In some cases of AN, psychiatrists must determine whether they have the capacity to make decisions about treatment, said Gabriel Jerkins, MD, a chief resident of psychiatry at the University of Florida. At issue is “the ability of the individual to comprehend the information being disclosed in regard to their condition, as well as the nature and potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment alternatives. They include of course, no treatment at all.”

University of Florida

University of Florida

SAN FRANCISCO – The patient at a Florida eating disorder clinic said she was eating plenty even though she acknowledged purging once a week. But her vitals told a different story: Her body mass index (BMI) was 12.2, down from 14.8 a couple of years before – a dangerously low value.

University of Florida

Determining capacity

In some cases of AN, psychiatrists must determine whether they have the capacity to make decisions about treatment, said Gabriel Jerkins, MD, a chief resident of psychiatry at the University of Florida. At issue is “the ability of the individual to comprehend the information being disclosed in regard to their condition, as well as the nature and potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment alternatives. They include of course, no treatment at all.”

University of Florida

University of Florida

SAN FRANCISCO – The patient at a Florida eating disorder clinic said she was eating plenty even though she acknowledged purging once a week. But her vitals told a different story: Her body mass index (BMI) was 12.2, down from 14.8 a couple of years before – a dangerously low value.

University of Florida

Determining capacity

In some cases of AN, psychiatrists must determine whether they have the capacity to make decisions about treatment, said Gabriel Jerkins, MD, a chief resident of psychiatry at the University of Florida. At issue is “the ability of the individual to comprehend the information being disclosed in regard to their condition, as well as the nature and potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment alternatives. They include of course, no treatment at all.”

University of Florida

University of Florida

TOPLINE

Alcohol dependence, but not consumption, at age 18 years increases the risk for depression at age 24 years.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included 3,902 mostly White adolescents, about 58% female, born in England from April 1991 to December 1992, who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) that examined genetic and environmental determinants of health and development.
• Participants completed the self-report Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) between the ages of 16 and 23 years, a period when average alcohol use increases rapidly.
• The primary outcome was probability for depression at age 24 years, using the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (CIS-R), a self-administered computerized clinical assessment of common mental disorder symptoms during the past week.
• Researchers assessed frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption as well as alcohol dependence.
• Confounders included sex, housing type, maternal education and depressive symptoms, parents’ alcohol use, conduct problems at age 4 years, being bullied, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAYS

• After adjustments, alcohol dependence at age 18 years was associated with depression at age 24 years (unstandardized probit coefficient 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.25; P = .019)
• The relationship appeared to persist for alcohol dependence at each age of the growth curve (17-22 years).
• There was no evidence that frequency or quantity of alcohol consumption at age 18 was significantly associated with depression at age 24, suggesting these factors may not increase the risk for later depression unless there are also features of dependency.

IN PRACTICE

“Our findings suggest that preventing alcohol dependence during adolescence, or treating it early, could reduce the risk of depression,” which could have important public health implications, the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was carried out by researchers at the University of Bristol; University College London; Critical Thinking Unit, Public Health Directorate, NHS; University of Nottingham, all in the United Kingdom. It was published online in Lancet Psychiatry

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial attrition in the ALSPAC cohort from birth to age 24 years. The sample was recruited from one U.K. region and most participants were White. Measures of alcohol consumption and dependence excluded some features of abuse. And as this is an observational study, the possibility of residual confounding can’t be excluded.

DISCLOSURES

The investigators report no relevant disclosures. The study received support from the UK Medical Research Council and Alcohol Research UK.

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

TOPLINE

Alcohol dependence, but not consumption, at age 18 years increases the risk for depression at age 24 years.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included 3,902 mostly White adolescents, about 58% female, born in England from April 1991 to December 1992, who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) that examined genetic and environmental determinants of health and development.
• Participants completed the self-report Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) between the ages of 16 and 23 years, a period when average alcohol use increases rapidly.
• The primary outcome was probability for depression at age 24 years, using the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (CIS-R), a self-administered computerized clinical assessment of common mental disorder symptoms during the past week.
• Researchers assessed frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption as well as alcohol dependence.
• Confounders included sex, housing type, maternal education and depressive symptoms, parents’ alcohol use, conduct problems at age 4 years, being bullied, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAYS

• After adjustments, alcohol dependence at age 18 years was associated with depression at age 24 years (unstandardized probit coefficient 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.25; P = .019)
• The relationship appeared to persist for alcohol dependence at each age of the growth curve (17-22 years).
• There was no evidence that frequency or quantity of alcohol consumption at age 18 was significantly associated with depression at age 24, suggesting these factors may not increase the risk for later depression unless there are also features of dependency.

IN PRACTICE

“Our findings suggest that preventing alcohol dependence during adolescence, or treating it early, could reduce the risk of depression,” which could have important public health implications, the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was carried out by researchers at the University of Bristol; University College London; Critical Thinking Unit, Public Health Directorate, NHS; University of Nottingham, all in the United Kingdom. It was published online in Lancet Psychiatry

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial attrition in the ALSPAC cohort from birth to age 24 years. The sample was recruited from one U.K. region and most participants were White. Measures of alcohol consumption and dependence excluded some features of abuse. And as this is an observational study, the possibility of residual confounding can’t be excluded.

DISCLOSURES

The investigators report no relevant disclosures. The study received support from the UK Medical Research Council and Alcohol Research UK.

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

TOPLINE

Alcohol dependence, but not consumption, at age 18 years increases the risk for depression at age 24 years.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included 3,902 mostly White adolescents, about 58% female, born in England from April 1991 to December 1992, who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) that examined genetic and environmental determinants of health and development.
• Participants completed the self-report Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) between the ages of 16 and 23 years, a period when average alcohol use increases rapidly.
• The primary outcome was probability for depression at age 24 years, using the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (CIS-R), a self-administered computerized clinical assessment of common mental disorder symptoms during the past week.
• Researchers assessed frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption as well as alcohol dependence.
• Confounders included sex, housing type, maternal education and depressive symptoms, parents’ alcohol use, conduct problems at age 4 years, being bullied, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAYS

• After adjustments, alcohol dependence at age 18 years was associated with depression at age 24 years (unstandardized probit coefficient 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.25; P = .019)
• The relationship appeared to persist for alcohol dependence at each age of the growth curve (17-22 years).
• There was no evidence that frequency or quantity of alcohol consumption at age 18 was significantly associated with depression at age 24, suggesting these factors may not increase the risk for later depression unless there are also features of dependency.

IN PRACTICE

“Our findings suggest that preventing alcohol dependence during adolescence, or treating it early, could reduce the risk of depression,” which could have important public health implications, the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was carried out by researchers at the University of Bristol; University College London; Critical Thinking Unit, Public Health Directorate, NHS; University of Nottingham, all in the United Kingdom. It was published online in Lancet Psychiatry

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial attrition in the ALSPAC cohort from birth to age 24 years. The sample was recruited from one U.K. region and most participants were White. Measures of alcohol consumption and dependence excluded some features of abuse. And as this is an observational study, the possibility of residual confounding can’t be excluded.

DISCLOSURES

The investigators report no relevant disclosures. The study received support from the UK Medical Research Council and Alcohol Research UK.

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