MDedge Psychiatry

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

The surge in drug overdose deaths in the United States during the first 2 years of the pandemic appears to have stabilized, according to newly released figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overdose deaths in 2022 totaled an estimated 109,680 people, which is 2% more than the 107,573 deaths in 2021, according to the figures. But the 2022 total is still a record for the third straight year.

Public health officials are now in a hopeful position. If the 2022 data represents a peak, then the country will see deaths decline toward pre-pandemic levels. If overdose deaths instead have reached a plateau, it means that the United States will sustain the nearly 20% leap that came amid a deadly increase in drug use in 2020 and 2021.

“The fact that it does seem to be flattening out, at least at a national level, is encouraging,” Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, PhD, MPH, told The Associated Press. “But these numbers are still extraordinarily high. We shouldn’t suggest the crisis is in any way over.”

The newly released figures from the CDC are considered estimates because some states may still send updated 2022 information later this year.

Although the number of deaths from 2021 to 2022 was stable on a national level, the picture varied more widely at the state level. More than half of U.S. states saw increases, while deaths in 23 states decreased, and just one – Iowa – had the same number of overdose deaths in 2021 and 2022.

The states with the highest counts in 2022 were:

• California: 11,978 deaths
• Florida: 8,032 deaths
• Texas: 5,607 deaths
• Pennsylvania: 5,222 deaths
• Ohio: 5,103 deaths

Synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and tramadol, account for most drug overdose deaths, according to a December 2022 report from the CDC. 

State officials told The AP that they believe the plateau in overdose deaths is in part due to educational campaigns to warn the public about the dangers of drug use, as well as from expanded addiction treatment and increased access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone. 

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

The surge in drug overdose deaths in the United States during the first 2 years of the pandemic appears to have stabilized, according to newly released figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overdose deaths in 2022 totaled an estimated 109,680 people, which is 2% more than the 107,573 deaths in 2021, according to the figures. But the 2022 total is still a record for the third straight year.

Public health officials are now in a hopeful position. If the 2022 data represents a peak, then the country will see deaths decline toward pre-pandemic levels. If overdose deaths instead have reached a plateau, it means that the United States will sustain the nearly 20% leap that came amid a deadly increase in drug use in 2020 and 2021.

“The fact that it does seem to be flattening out, at least at a national level, is encouraging,” Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, PhD, MPH, told The Associated Press. “But these numbers are still extraordinarily high. We shouldn’t suggest the crisis is in any way over.”

The newly released figures from the CDC are considered estimates because some states may still send updated 2022 information later this year.

Although the number of deaths from 2021 to 2022 was stable on a national level, the picture varied more widely at the state level. More than half of U.S. states saw increases, while deaths in 23 states decreased, and just one – Iowa – had the same number of overdose deaths in 2021 and 2022.

The states with the highest counts in 2022 were:

• California: 11,978 deaths
• Florida: 8,032 deaths
• Texas: 5,607 deaths
• Pennsylvania: 5,222 deaths
• Ohio: 5,103 deaths

Synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and tramadol, account for most drug overdose deaths, according to a December 2022 report from the CDC. 

State officials told The AP that they believe the plateau in overdose deaths is in part due to educational campaigns to warn the public about the dangers of drug use, as well as from expanded addiction treatment and increased access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone. 

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

The surge in drug overdose deaths in the United States during the first 2 years of the pandemic appears to have stabilized, according to newly released figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overdose deaths in 2022 totaled an estimated 109,680 people, which is 2% more than the 107,573 deaths in 2021, according to the figures. But the 2022 total is still a record for the third straight year.

Public health officials are now in a hopeful position. If the 2022 data represents a peak, then the country will see deaths decline toward pre-pandemic levels. If overdose deaths instead have reached a plateau, it means that the United States will sustain the nearly 20% leap that came amid a deadly increase in drug use in 2020 and 2021.

“The fact that it does seem to be flattening out, at least at a national level, is encouraging,” Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, PhD, MPH, told The Associated Press. “But these numbers are still extraordinarily high. We shouldn’t suggest the crisis is in any way over.”

The newly released figures from the CDC are considered estimates because some states may still send updated 2022 information later this year.

Although the number of deaths from 2021 to 2022 was stable on a national level, the picture varied more widely at the state level. More than half of U.S. states saw increases, while deaths in 23 states decreased, and just one – Iowa – had the same number of overdose deaths in 2021 and 2022.

The states with the highest counts in 2022 were:

• California: 11,978 deaths
• Florida: 8,032 deaths
• Texas: 5,607 deaths
• Pennsylvania: 5,222 deaths
• Ohio: 5,103 deaths

Synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and tramadol, account for most drug overdose deaths, according to a December 2022 report from the CDC. 

State officials told The AP that they believe the plateau in overdose deaths is in part due to educational campaigns to warn the public about the dangers of drug use, as well as from expanded addiction treatment and increased access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone. 

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

We are living in an era of increasing sensitivity to our diversity and the ways we interact, but also an era of growing resistance to change and accommodation. As clinicians, we hope to be among the sensitive and the progressive, open to improving our views and interactions. And as part of our respect for those we treat, we seek to speak clearly with them about our assessment of what is disrupting their lives and about their options.

Using the right words is crucial in that work. Well-chosen words can be heard and understood. Poorly chosen words can be confusing or off-putting; they may miscommunicate or be offensive. Maintaining the quality of clinician-patient communication requires special care, because one party is expert and the other may not be, and because only one party is identified as ill. Careful choice of words is also important among colleagues, who may not always mean the same things when using the same words.

Dr. Cohen

In psychiatry, consumer knowledge and access are growing. There are effective standard treatments and promising new ones. But our terminology is often antique and obscure. This is so despite a recognition that some terms we use may communicate poorly and some are deprecating.

A notable example is “schizophrenia.” Originally referring to cognitive phenomena that were not adequately coherent with reality or one another, it has gone through periods of describing most psychosis to particular subsets of psychoses. Debates persist on specific criteria for key symptoms and typical course. Even two clinicians trained in the same site may not agree on the defining criteria, and the public, mostly informed by books, movies, and newspapers, is even more confused, often believing schizophrenia is multiple-personality disorder. In addition, the press and public often associate schizophrenia with violent behavior and uniformly bad outcomes, and for those reasons, a diagnosis is not only frightening but also stigmatizing.¹

Many papers have presented the case for retiring “schizophrenia.”² And practical efforts to rename schizophrenia have been made. These efforts have occurred in countries in which English is not the primary language.³ In Japan, schizophrenia was replaced by “integration disorder.” In Hong Kong, “disorder of thought and perception” was implemented. Korea chose “attunement disorder.” A recent large survey of stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, and consumers in the United States, explored alternatives in English.⁴ Terms receiving approval included: “psychosis spectrum syndrome,” “altered perception syndrome,” and “neuro-emotional integration disorder.”

Despite these recommendations, the standard manuals of diagnosis, the ICD and DSM, have maintained the century-old term “schizophrenia” in their most recent editions, released in 2022. Aside from the inertia commonly associated with long-standing practices, it has been noted that many of the alternatives suggested or, in some places, implemented, are complex, somewhat vague, or too inclusive to distinguish different clinical presentations requiring different treatment approaches. They might not be compelling for use or optimal to guide caregiving.

Perhaps more concerning than “schizophrenia” are terms used to describe personality disorders.⁵ “Personality disorder” itself is problematic, implying a core and possibly unalterable fault in an individual. And among the personality disorders, words for the related group of disorders called “Cluster B” in the DSM raise issues. This includes the terms narcissistic, antisocial, histrionic, and borderline in DSM-5-TR. The first three terms are clearly pejorative. The last is unclear: What is the border between? Originally, it was bordering on psychosis, but as explained in DSM and ICD, borderline disorder is much more closely related to other personality disorders.

Notably, the “Cluster B” disorders run together in families, but men are more likely to be called antisocial and women borderline, even though the overlap in signs and symptoms is profound, suggesting marginally different manifestations of the same condition. The ICD has made changes to address the problems associated with some of these terms. ICD proposes personality “difficulty” to replace personality “disorder”; a modest change but less offensive. And it proposes seeing all, or at least most, personality disorders as being related to one another. Most share features of disturbances in sense-of-self and relationships with others. As descriptors, ICD kept “borderline pattern,” but replaced “antisocial” with “dissocial,” in an effort to be accurate but less demeaning. Other descriptors it proposes are negative affectivity, detachment, disinhibition, and anankastia, the last referring to compulsions.

These are notable advances. Can the field find even better terms to communicate hard to hear information, with words that are less problematic? In search of options, we surveyed clinicians at academic centers about the terms they preferred to avoid and the ones they prefer to use in talking with patients.⁶ Their practices may be informative.

Briefly summarized, these clinicians preferred not to use “schizophrenia” and very few used “antisocial,” “histrionic,” or “narcissistic.” Most avoided using “borderline” as well. Instead, they recommended discussing specific symptoms and manifestations of illness or dysfunctional behavior and relationships with their patients. They employed terms including “psychosis,” “hallucination,” “delusion,” “thinking disorder,” and “mood disorder.” They explained these terms, as needed, and found that patients understood them.

For Cluster B personality disorders, they spoke of personality traits and styles and specifically about “conduct,” “rule breaking,” “coping,” “self-focus,” “emotionality,” and “reactivity.” Those choices are not perfect, of course. Medical terms are often not standard words used in a conversational way. But the words chosen by these clinicians are generally straightforward and may communicate in a clear and acceptable fashion. It is also notable that the terms match how the clinicians assess and treat their patients, as observed in a separate study of their practices.⁷ That is, the clinicians advised that they look for and suggest treatments for the specific symptoms they see that most disrupt an individual’s life, such as delusions or mood instability. They are not much guided by diagnoses, like schizophrenia or borderline disorder. That makes the chosen terms not only less confusing or off-putting but also more practical.

Changing terminology in any field is difficult. We are trained to use standard terms. Clearly, however, many clinicians avoid some terms and use alternatives in their work. Asked why, they responded that they did so precisely to communicate more effectively and more respectfully. That is key to their treatment goals. Perhaps others will consider these choices useful in their work. And perhaps both the DSM and the ICD will not only continue to consider but will decide to implement alternatives for problematic terms in the years ahead, as they discuss their next revisions.

Dr. Cohen is director of the Program for Neuropsychiatric Research at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and Robertson-Steele Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

References

1. Lasalvia A et al. Renaming schizophrenia? A survey among psychiatrists, mental health service users and family members in Italy. Schizophr Res. 2021;228:502-9.

2. Gülöksüz S et al. Renaming schizophrenia: 5 x 5. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019;28(3):254-7.

3. Sartorius N et al. Name change for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(2):255-8.

4. Mesholam-Gately RI et al. Are we ready for a name change for schizophrenia? A survey of multiple stakeholders. Schizophr Res. 2021;238:152-60.

5. Mulder R. The evolving nosology of personality disorder and its clinical utility. World Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;20(3):361-2.

6. Cohen BM et al. Diagnostic terms psychiatrists prefer to use for common psychotic and personality disorders. J Psychiatr Res. 2022 Sep 5;155:226-31.

7. Cohen BM, et al. Use of DSM-5 diagnoses vs. other clinical information by US academic-affiliated psychiatrists in assessing and treating psychotic disorders. World Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;20(3):447-8.

We are living in an era of increasing sensitivity to our diversity and the ways we interact, but also an era of growing resistance to change and accommodation. As clinicians, we hope to be among the sensitive and the progressive, open to improving our views and interactions. And as part of our respect for those we treat, we seek to speak clearly with them about our assessment of what is disrupting their lives and about their options.

Using the right words is crucial in that work. Well-chosen words can be heard and understood. Poorly chosen words can be confusing or off-putting; they may miscommunicate or be offensive. Maintaining the quality of clinician-patient communication requires special care, because one party is expert and the other may not be, and because only one party is identified as ill. Careful choice of words is also important among colleagues, who may not always mean the same things when using the same words.

Dr. Cohen

In psychiatry, consumer knowledge and access are growing. There are effective standard treatments and promising new ones. But our terminology is often antique and obscure. This is so despite a recognition that some terms we use may communicate poorly and some are deprecating.

A notable example is “schizophrenia.” Originally referring to cognitive phenomena that were not adequately coherent with reality or one another, it has gone through periods of describing most psychosis to particular subsets of psychoses. Debates persist on specific criteria for key symptoms and typical course. Even two clinicians trained in the same site may not agree on the defining criteria, and the public, mostly informed by books, movies, and newspapers, is even more confused, often believing schizophrenia is multiple-personality disorder. In addition, the press and public often associate schizophrenia with violent behavior and uniformly bad outcomes, and for those reasons, a diagnosis is not only frightening but also stigmatizing.¹

Many papers have presented the case for retiring “schizophrenia.”² And practical efforts to rename schizophrenia have been made. These efforts have occurred in countries in which English is not the primary language.³ In Japan, schizophrenia was replaced by “integration disorder.” In Hong Kong, “disorder of thought and perception” was implemented. Korea chose “attunement disorder.” A recent large survey of stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, and consumers in the United States, explored alternatives in English.⁴ Terms receiving approval included: “psychosis spectrum syndrome,” “altered perception syndrome,” and “neuro-emotional integration disorder.”

Despite these recommendations, the standard manuals of diagnosis, the ICD and DSM, have maintained the century-old term “schizophrenia” in their most recent editions, released in 2022. Aside from the inertia commonly associated with long-standing practices, it has been noted that many of the alternatives suggested or, in some places, implemented, are complex, somewhat vague, or too inclusive to distinguish different clinical presentations requiring different treatment approaches. They might not be compelling for use or optimal to guide caregiving.

Perhaps more concerning than “schizophrenia” are terms used to describe personality disorders.⁵ “Personality disorder” itself is problematic, implying a core and possibly unalterable fault in an individual. And among the personality disorders, words for the related group of disorders called “Cluster B” in the DSM raise issues. This includes the terms narcissistic, antisocial, histrionic, and borderline in DSM-5-TR. The first three terms are clearly pejorative. The last is unclear: What is the border between? Originally, it was bordering on psychosis, but as explained in DSM and ICD, borderline disorder is much more closely related to other personality disorders.

Notably, the “Cluster B” disorders run together in families, but men are more likely to be called antisocial and women borderline, even though the overlap in signs and symptoms is profound, suggesting marginally different manifestations of the same condition. The ICD has made changes to address the problems associated with some of these terms. ICD proposes personality “difficulty” to replace personality “disorder”; a modest change but less offensive. And it proposes seeing all, or at least most, personality disorders as being related to one another. Most share features of disturbances in sense-of-self and relationships with others. As descriptors, ICD kept “borderline pattern,” but replaced “antisocial” with “dissocial,” in an effort to be accurate but less demeaning. Other descriptors it proposes are negative affectivity, detachment, disinhibition, and anankastia, the last referring to compulsions.

These are notable advances. Can the field find even better terms to communicate hard to hear information, with words that are less problematic? In search of options, we surveyed clinicians at academic centers about the terms they preferred to avoid and the ones they prefer to use in talking with patients.⁶ Their practices may be informative.

Briefly summarized, these clinicians preferred not to use “schizophrenia” and very few used “antisocial,” “histrionic,” or “narcissistic.” Most avoided using “borderline” as well. Instead, they recommended discussing specific symptoms and manifestations of illness or dysfunctional behavior and relationships with their patients. They employed terms including “psychosis,” “hallucination,” “delusion,” “thinking disorder,” and “mood disorder.” They explained these terms, as needed, and found that patients understood them.

For Cluster B personality disorders, they spoke of personality traits and styles and specifically about “conduct,” “rule breaking,” “coping,” “self-focus,” “emotionality,” and “reactivity.” Those choices are not perfect, of course. Medical terms are often not standard words used in a conversational way. But the words chosen by these clinicians are generally straightforward and may communicate in a clear and acceptable fashion. It is also notable that the terms match how the clinicians assess and treat their patients, as observed in a separate study of their practices.⁷ That is, the clinicians advised that they look for and suggest treatments for the specific symptoms they see that most disrupt an individual’s life, such as delusions or mood instability. They are not much guided by diagnoses, like schizophrenia or borderline disorder. That makes the chosen terms not only less confusing or off-putting but also more practical.

Changing terminology in any field is difficult. We are trained to use standard terms. Clearly, however, many clinicians avoid some terms and use alternatives in their work. Asked why, they responded that they did so precisely to communicate more effectively and more respectfully. That is key to their treatment goals. Perhaps others will consider these choices useful in their work. And perhaps both the DSM and the ICD will not only continue to consider but will decide to implement alternatives for problematic terms in the years ahead, as they discuss their next revisions.

Dr. Cohen is director of the Program for Neuropsychiatric Research at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and Robertson-Steele Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

References

1. Lasalvia A et al. Renaming schizophrenia? A survey among psychiatrists, mental health service users and family members in Italy. Schizophr Res. 2021;228:502-9.

2. Gülöksüz S et al. Renaming schizophrenia: 5 x 5. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019;28(3):254-7.

3. Sartorius N et al. Name change for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(2):255-8.

4. Mesholam-Gately RI et al. Are we ready for a name change for schizophrenia? A survey of multiple stakeholders. Schizophr Res. 2021;238:152-60.

5. Mulder R. The evolving nosology of personality disorder and its clinical utility. World Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;20(3):361-2.

6. Cohen BM et al. Diagnostic terms psychiatrists prefer to use for common psychotic and personality disorders. J Psychiatr Res. 2022 Sep 5;155:226-31.

7. Cohen BM, et al. Use of DSM-5 diagnoses vs. other clinical information by US academic-affiliated psychiatrists in assessing and treating psychotic disorders. World Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;20(3):447-8.

We are living in an era of increasing sensitivity to our diversity and the ways we interact, but also an era of growing resistance to change and accommodation. As clinicians, we hope to be among the sensitive and the progressive, open to improving our views and interactions. And as part of our respect for those we treat, we seek to speak clearly with them about our assessment of what is disrupting their lives and about their options.

Using the right words is crucial in that work. Well-chosen words can be heard and understood. Poorly chosen words can be confusing or off-putting; they may miscommunicate or be offensive. Maintaining the quality of clinician-patient communication requires special care, because one party is expert and the other may not be, and because only one party is identified as ill. Careful choice of words is also important among colleagues, who may not always mean the same things when using the same words.

Dr. Cohen

In psychiatry, consumer knowledge and access are growing. There are effective standard treatments and promising new ones. But our terminology is often antique and obscure. This is so despite a recognition that some terms we use may communicate poorly and some are deprecating.

A notable example is “schizophrenia.” Originally referring to cognitive phenomena that were not adequately coherent with reality or one another, it has gone through periods of describing most psychosis to particular subsets of psychoses. Debates persist on specific criteria for key symptoms and typical course. Even two clinicians trained in the same site may not agree on the defining criteria, and the public, mostly informed by books, movies, and newspapers, is even more confused, often believing schizophrenia is multiple-personality disorder. In addition, the press and public often associate schizophrenia with violent behavior and uniformly bad outcomes, and for those reasons, a diagnosis is not only frightening but also stigmatizing.¹

Many papers have presented the case for retiring “schizophrenia.”² And practical efforts to rename schizophrenia have been made. These efforts have occurred in countries in which English is not the primary language.³ In Japan, schizophrenia was replaced by “integration disorder.” In Hong Kong, “disorder of thought and perception” was implemented. Korea chose “attunement disorder.” A recent large survey of stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, and consumers in the United States, explored alternatives in English.⁴ Terms receiving approval included: “psychosis spectrum syndrome,” “altered perception syndrome,” and “neuro-emotional integration disorder.”

Despite these recommendations, the standard manuals of diagnosis, the ICD and DSM, have maintained the century-old term “schizophrenia” in their most recent editions, released in 2022. Aside from the inertia commonly associated with long-standing practices, it has been noted that many of the alternatives suggested or, in some places, implemented, are complex, somewhat vague, or too inclusive to distinguish different clinical presentations requiring different treatment approaches. They might not be compelling for use or optimal to guide caregiving.

Perhaps more concerning than “schizophrenia” are terms used to describe personality disorders.⁵ “Personality disorder” itself is problematic, implying a core and possibly unalterable fault in an individual. And among the personality disorders, words for the related group of disorders called “Cluster B” in the DSM raise issues. This includes the terms narcissistic, antisocial, histrionic, and borderline in DSM-5-TR. The first three terms are clearly pejorative. The last is unclear: What is the border between? Originally, it was bordering on psychosis, but as explained in DSM and ICD, borderline disorder is much more closely related to other personality disorders.

Notably, the “Cluster B” disorders run together in families, but men are more likely to be called antisocial and women borderline, even though the overlap in signs and symptoms is profound, suggesting marginally different manifestations of the same condition. The ICD has made changes to address the problems associated with some of these terms. ICD proposes personality “difficulty” to replace personality “disorder”; a modest change but less offensive. And it proposes seeing all, or at least most, personality disorders as being related to one another. Most share features of disturbances in sense-of-self and relationships with others. As descriptors, ICD kept “borderline pattern,” but replaced “antisocial” with “dissocial,” in an effort to be accurate but less demeaning. Other descriptors it proposes are negative affectivity, detachment, disinhibition, and anankastia, the last referring to compulsions.

These are notable advances. Can the field find even better terms to communicate hard to hear information, with words that are less problematic? In search of options, we surveyed clinicians at academic centers about the terms they preferred to avoid and the ones they prefer to use in talking with patients.⁶ Their practices may be informative.

Briefly summarized, these clinicians preferred not to use “schizophrenia” and very few used “antisocial,” “histrionic,” or “narcissistic.” Most avoided using “borderline” as well. Instead, they recommended discussing specific symptoms and manifestations of illness or dysfunctional behavior and relationships with their patients. They employed terms including “psychosis,” “hallucination,” “delusion,” “thinking disorder,” and “mood disorder.” They explained these terms, as needed, and found that patients understood them.

For Cluster B personality disorders, they spoke of personality traits and styles and specifically about “conduct,” “rule breaking,” “coping,” “self-focus,” “emotionality,” and “reactivity.” Those choices are not perfect, of course. Medical terms are often not standard words used in a conversational way. But the words chosen by these clinicians are generally straightforward and may communicate in a clear and acceptable fashion. It is also notable that the terms match how the clinicians assess and treat their patients, as observed in a separate study of their practices.⁷ That is, the clinicians advised that they look for and suggest treatments for the specific symptoms they see that most disrupt an individual’s life, such as delusions or mood instability. They are not much guided by diagnoses, like schizophrenia or borderline disorder. That makes the chosen terms not only less confusing or off-putting but also more practical.

Changing terminology in any field is difficult. We are trained to use standard terms. Clearly, however, many clinicians avoid some terms and use alternatives in their work. Asked why, they responded that they did so precisely to communicate more effectively and more respectfully. That is key to their treatment goals. Perhaps others will consider these choices useful in their work. And perhaps both the DSM and the ICD will not only continue to consider but will decide to implement alternatives for problematic terms in the years ahead, as they discuss their next revisions.

Dr. Cohen is director of the Program for Neuropsychiatric Research at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and Robertson-Steele Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

References

1. Lasalvia A et al. Renaming schizophrenia? A survey among psychiatrists, mental health service users and family members in Italy. Schizophr Res. 2021;228:502-9.

2. Gülöksüz S et al. Renaming schizophrenia: 5 x 5. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019;28(3):254-7.

3. Sartorius N et al. Name change for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(2):255-8.

4. Mesholam-Gately RI et al. Are we ready for a name change for schizophrenia? A survey of multiple stakeholders. Schizophr Res. 2021;238:152-60.

5. Mulder R. The evolving nosology of personality disorder and its clinical utility. World Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;20(3):361-2.

6. Cohen BM et al. Diagnostic terms psychiatrists prefer to use for common psychotic and personality disorders. J Psychiatr Res. 2022 Sep 5;155:226-31.

7. Cohen BM, et al. Use of DSM-5 diagnoses vs. other clinical information by US academic-affiliated psychiatrists in assessing and treating psychotic disorders. World Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;20(3):447-8.

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A self-led, practitioner-supported form of mindfulness therapy was more effective and more cost-effective than self-help cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-SH), results from a head-to-head study show.

Self-help mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT-SH) produced better outcomes for participants with depression and was more cost-effective than CBT-SH.

Practitioner-supported self-help therapy regimens are growing in popularity as a way to expand access to mental health services and to address the shortage of mental health professionals.

Generally, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy aims to increase awareness of the depression maintenance cycle while fostering a nonjudgmental attitude toward present-moment experiences, the investigators note.

In contrast, CBT aims to challenge negative and unrealistic thought patterns that may perpetuate depression, replacing them with more realistic and objective thoughts.

“Practitioner-supported MBCT-SH should be routinely offered as an intervention for mild to moderate depression alongside practitioner-supported CBT-SH,” the investigators note.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Better recovery rates?

CBT-SH traditionally had been associated with high attrition rates, and alternative forms of self-help therapy are becoming increasingly necessary to fill this treatment gap, the researchers note. To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of both treatment types, the researchers recruited 410 participants with mild to moderate depression at 10 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either MBCT-SH or CBT-SH between November 2017 and January 2020. A total of 204 participants received MBCT-SH, and 206 received CBT-SH.

All participants were given specific self-help workbooks, depending on the study group to which they were assigned. Those who received MBCT-SH used “The Mindful Way Workbook: An 8-Week Program to Free Yourself From Depression and Emotional Distress,” while those who received CBT-SH used “Overcoming Depression and Low Mood: A Five Areas Approach, 3rd Edition.”

Investigators asked all participants to guide themselves through six 30- to 45-minute sessions, using the information in the workbooks. Trained psychological well-being practitioners supported participants as they moved through the workbooks during the six sessions.

Participants were assessed at baseline with the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and the Clinical Interview Schedule–Revised at 16 weeks and 24 weeks.

At 16 weeks post randomization, results showed that practitioner-supported MBCT-SH led to significantly greater reductions in depression symptom severity, compared with practitioner-supported CBT-SH (mean [standard deviation] PHQ-9 score, 7.2 [4.8] points vs. 8.6 [5.5] points; between-group difference, –1.5 points; 95% confidence interval, –2.6 to –0.4; P = .009).

Results also showed that on average, the CBT-SH intervention cost $631 more per participant than the MBCT-SH intervention over the 42-week follow-up.

The investigators explain that “a substantial proportion of this additional cost was accounted for by additional face-to-face individual psychological therapy accessed by CBT-SH participants outside of the study intervention.

“In conclusion, this study found that a novel intervention, practitioner-supported MBCT-SH, was clinically superior in targeting depressive symptom severity at postintervention and cost-effective, compared with the criterion standard of practitioner-supported CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression,” the investigators write.

“If study findings are translated into routine practice, this would see many more people recovering from depression while costing health services less money,” they add.
 

Clinically meaningful?

Commenting on the study for this article, Lauren Bylsma, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, cast doubt on the ability of such a short trial to determine meaningful change.

She said that the extra costs incurred by participants in the CBT-SH arm of the study are likely, since it is “difficult to do CBT alone – you need an objective person to guide you as you practice.”

Dr. Bylsma noted that ultimately, more real-world studies of therapy are needed, given the great need for mental health.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The original article contains a full list of the authors’ relevant financial relationships.

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

A self-led, practitioner-supported form of mindfulness therapy was more effective and more cost-effective than self-help cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-SH), results from a head-to-head study show.

Self-help mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT-SH) produced better outcomes for participants with depression and was more cost-effective than CBT-SH.

Practitioner-supported self-help therapy regimens are growing in popularity as a way to expand access to mental health services and to address the shortage of mental health professionals.

Generally, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy aims to increase awareness of the depression maintenance cycle while fostering a nonjudgmental attitude toward present-moment experiences, the investigators note.

In contrast, CBT aims to challenge negative and unrealistic thought patterns that may perpetuate depression, replacing them with more realistic and objective thoughts.

“Practitioner-supported MBCT-SH should be routinely offered as an intervention for mild to moderate depression alongside practitioner-supported CBT-SH,” the investigators note.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Better recovery rates?

CBT-SH traditionally had been associated with high attrition rates, and alternative forms of self-help therapy are becoming increasingly necessary to fill this treatment gap, the researchers note. To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of both treatment types, the researchers recruited 410 participants with mild to moderate depression at 10 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either MBCT-SH or CBT-SH between November 2017 and January 2020. A total of 204 participants received MBCT-SH, and 206 received CBT-SH.

All participants were given specific self-help workbooks, depending on the study group to which they were assigned. Those who received MBCT-SH used “The Mindful Way Workbook: An 8-Week Program to Free Yourself From Depression and Emotional Distress,” while those who received CBT-SH used “Overcoming Depression and Low Mood: A Five Areas Approach, 3rd Edition.”

Investigators asked all participants to guide themselves through six 30- to 45-minute sessions, using the information in the workbooks. Trained psychological well-being practitioners supported participants as they moved through the workbooks during the six sessions.

Participants were assessed at baseline with the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and the Clinical Interview Schedule–Revised at 16 weeks and 24 weeks.

At 16 weeks post randomization, results showed that practitioner-supported MBCT-SH led to significantly greater reductions in depression symptom severity, compared with practitioner-supported CBT-SH (mean [standard deviation] PHQ-9 score, 7.2 [4.8] points vs. 8.6 [5.5] points; between-group difference, –1.5 points; 95% confidence interval, –2.6 to –0.4; P = .009).

Results also showed that on average, the CBT-SH intervention cost $631 more per participant than the MBCT-SH intervention over the 42-week follow-up.

The investigators explain that “a substantial proportion of this additional cost was accounted for by additional face-to-face individual psychological therapy accessed by CBT-SH participants outside of the study intervention.

“In conclusion, this study found that a novel intervention, practitioner-supported MBCT-SH, was clinically superior in targeting depressive symptom severity at postintervention and cost-effective, compared with the criterion standard of practitioner-supported CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression,” the investigators write.

“If study findings are translated into routine practice, this would see many more people recovering from depression while costing health services less money,” they add.
 

Clinically meaningful?

Commenting on the study for this article, Lauren Bylsma, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, cast doubt on the ability of such a short trial to determine meaningful change.

She said that the extra costs incurred by participants in the CBT-SH arm of the study are likely, since it is “difficult to do CBT alone – you need an objective person to guide you as you practice.”

Dr. Bylsma noted that ultimately, more real-world studies of therapy are needed, given the great need for mental health.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The original article contains a full list of the authors’ relevant financial relationships.

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

A self-led, practitioner-supported form of mindfulness therapy was more effective and more cost-effective than self-help cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-SH), results from a head-to-head study show.

Self-help mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT-SH) produced better outcomes for participants with depression and was more cost-effective than CBT-SH.

Practitioner-supported self-help therapy regimens are growing in popularity as a way to expand access to mental health services and to address the shortage of mental health professionals.

Generally, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy aims to increase awareness of the depression maintenance cycle while fostering a nonjudgmental attitude toward present-moment experiences, the investigators note.

In contrast, CBT aims to challenge negative and unrealistic thought patterns that may perpetuate depression, replacing them with more realistic and objective thoughts.

“Practitioner-supported MBCT-SH should be routinely offered as an intervention for mild to moderate depression alongside practitioner-supported CBT-SH,” the investigators note.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Better recovery rates?

CBT-SH traditionally had been associated with high attrition rates, and alternative forms of self-help therapy are becoming increasingly necessary to fill this treatment gap, the researchers note. To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of both treatment types, the researchers recruited 410 participants with mild to moderate depression at 10 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either MBCT-SH or CBT-SH between November 2017 and January 2020. A total of 204 participants received MBCT-SH, and 206 received CBT-SH.

All participants were given specific self-help workbooks, depending on the study group to which they were assigned. Those who received MBCT-SH used “The Mindful Way Workbook: An 8-Week Program to Free Yourself From Depression and Emotional Distress,” while those who received CBT-SH used “Overcoming Depression and Low Mood: A Five Areas Approach, 3rd Edition.”

Investigators asked all participants to guide themselves through six 30- to 45-minute sessions, using the information in the workbooks. Trained psychological well-being practitioners supported participants as they moved through the workbooks during the six sessions.

Participants were assessed at baseline with the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and the Clinical Interview Schedule–Revised at 16 weeks and 24 weeks.

At 16 weeks post randomization, results showed that practitioner-supported MBCT-SH led to significantly greater reductions in depression symptom severity, compared with practitioner-supported CBT-SH (mean [standard deviation] PHQ-9 score, 7.2 [4.8] points vs. 8.6 [5.5] points; between-group difference, –1.5 points; 95% confidence interval, –2.6 to –0.4; P = .009).

Results also showed that on average, the CBT-SH intervention cost $631 more per participant than the MBCT-SH intervention over the 42-week follow-up.

The investigators explain that “a substantial proportion of this additional cost was accounted for by additional face-to-face individual psychological therapy accessed by CBT-SH participants outside of the study intervention.

“In conclusion, this study found that a novel intervention, practitioner-supported MBCT-SH, was clinically superior in targeting depressive symptom severity at postintervention and cost-effective, compared with the criterion standard of practitioner-supported CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression,” the investigators write.

“If study findings are translated into routine practice, this would see many more people recovering from depression while costing health services less money,” they add.
 

Clinically meaningful?

Commenting on the study for this article, Lauren Bylsma, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, cast doubt on the ability of such a short trial to determine meaningful change.

She said that the extra costs incurred by participants in the CBT-SH arm of the study are likely, since it is “difficult to do CBT alone – you need an objective person to guide you as you practice.”

Dr. Bylsma noted that ultimately, more real-world studies of therapy are needed, given the great need for mental health.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The original article contains a full list of the authors’ relevant financial relationships.

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

Depression rates among U.S. adults have reached the highest levels ever recorded since the national public opinion firm Gallup started tracking the mental illness in 2015.
 

In a survey, 29% of adults said they had been diagnosed with depression during their lifetime, and 18% said they currently have depression or are being treated for it. Those rates are up from the baseline 2015 rates of 20% of people ever having depression and 11% of people with a current diagnosis.

Depression had been steadily rising before the pandemic, and the Gallup analysts wrote that “social isolation, loneliness, fear of infection, psychological exhaustion (particularly among frontline responders such as health care workers), elevated substance abuse, and disruptions in mental health services have all likely played a role” in the increase.

“The fact that Americans are more depressed and struggling after this time of incredible stress and isolation is perhaps not surprising,” American Psychiatric Association president Rebecca Brendel, MD, told CNN. “There are lingering effects on our health, especially our mental health, from the past 3 years that disrupted everything we knew.”

The new estimates are based on online survey responses collected in February from 5,167 adults in the United States who answered the questions:

• Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?
• Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?

Depression, which is also called major depressive disorder, is a treatable illness that negatively affects how someone feels, thinks, and acts. The symptoms can be both emotional (such as sadness or loss of interest in activities) and physical (such as fatigue or slowed movements or speech).

The latest study found that depression rates increased the most among women, young adults, Black people, and Hispanic people. For the first time, more Black and Hispanic people than White people reported ever being diagnosed with depression. The lifetime depression rate among Black people was 34%, compared with 31% for Hispanic people and 29% for White people.

The rate of lifetime depression among women jumped 10 percentage points in the past 5 years, to 37%, in February, the survey results showed. About 1 in 4 women said they currently had depression or were being treated for it, up 6 percentage points compared with 5 years ago.

When responses were analyzed by age, those 18-44 years old were the most likely to report ever being diagnosed with depression or currently having the illness. About one-third of younger adults have ever been diagnosed, and more than 1 in 5 said they currently have depression.

Dr. Brendel said awareness and reduced stigma could be adding to the rising rates of depression.

“We’re making it easier to talk about mental health and looking at it as part of our overall wellness, just like physical health,” she said. “People are aware of depression, and people are seeking help for it.”

If you or someone you know needs help, dial 988 for support from the national Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. It’s free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can also visit 988lifeline.org and choose the chat feature.

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

Depression rates among U.S. adults have reached the highest levels ever recorded since the national public opinion firm Gallup started tracking the mental illness in 2015.
 

In a survey, 29% of adults said they had been diagnosed with depression during their lifetime, and 18% said they currently have depression or are being treated for it. Those rates are up from the baseline 2015 rates of 20% of people ever having depression and 11% of people with a current diagnosis.

Depression had been steadily rising before the pandemic, and the Gallup analysts wrote that “social isolation, loneliness, fear of infection, psychological exhaustion (particularly among frontline responders such as health care workers), elevated substance abuse, and disruptions in mental health services have all likely played a role” in the increase.

“The fact that Americans are more depressed and struggling after this time of incredible stress and isolation is perhaps not surprising,” American Psychiatric Association president Rebecca Brendel, MD, told CNN. “There are lingering effects on our health, especially our mental health, from the past 3 years that disrupted everything we knew.”

The new estimates are based on online survey responses collected in February from 5,167 adults in the United States who answered the questions:

• Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?
• Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?

Depression, which is also called major depressive disorder, is a treatable illness that negatively affects how someone feels, thinks, and acts. The symptoms can be both emotional (such as sadness or loss of interest in activities) and physical (such as fatigue or slowed movements or speech).

The latest study found that depression rates increased the most among women, young adults, Black people, and Hispanic people. For the first time, more Black and Hispanic people than White people reported ever being diagnosed with depression. The lifetime depression rate among Black people was 34%, compared with 31% for Hispanic people and 29% for White people.

The rate of lifetime depression among women jumped 10 percentage points in the past 5 years, to 37%, in February, the survey results showed. About 1 in 4 women said they currently had depression or were being treated for it, up 6 percentage points compared with 5 years ago.

When responses were analyzed by age, those 18-44 years old were the most likely to report ever being diagnosed with depression or currently having the illness. About one-third of younger adults have ever been diagnosed, and more than 1 in 5 said they currently have depression.

Dr. Brendel said awareness and reduced stigma could be adding to the rising rates of depression.

“We’re making it easier to talk about mental health and looking at it as part of our overall wellness, just like physical health,” she said. “People are aware of depression, and people are seeking help for it.”

If you or someone you know needs help, dial 988 for support from the national Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. It’s free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can also visit 988lifeline.org and choose the chat feature.

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

Depression rates among U.S. adults have reached the highest levels ever recorded since the national public opinion firm Gallup started tracking the mental illness in 2015.
 

In a survey, 29% of adults said they had been diagnosed with depression during their lifetime, and 18% said they currently have depression or are being treated for it. Those rates are up from the baseline 2015 rates of 20% of people ever having depression and 11% of people with a current diagnosis.

Depression had been steadily rising before the pandemic, and the Gallup analysts wrote that “social isolation, loneliness, fear of infection, psychological exhaustion (particularly among frontline responders such as health care workers), elevated substance abuse, and disruptions in mental health services have all likely played a role” in the increase.

“The fact that Americans are more depressed and struggling after this time of incredible stress and isolation is perhaps not surprising,” American Psychiatric Association president Rebecca Brendel, MD, told CNN. “There are lingering effects on our health, especially our mental health, from the past 3 years that disrupted everything we knew.”

The new estimates are based on online survey responses collected in February from 5,167 adults in the United States who answered the questions:

• Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?
• Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?

Depression, which is also called major depressive disorder, is a treatable illness that negatively affects how someone feels, thinks, and acts. The symptoms can be both emotional (such as sadness or loss of interest in activities) and physical (such as fatigue or slowed movements or speech).

The latest study found that depression rates increased the most among women, young adults, Black people, and Hispanic people. For the first time, more Black and Hispanic people than White people reported ever being diagnosed with depression. The lifetime depression rate among Black people was 34%, compared with 31% for Hispanic people and 29% for White people.

The rate of lifetime depression among women jumped 10 percentage points in the past 5 years, to 37%, in February, the survey results showed. About 1 in 4 women said they currently had depression or were being treated for it, up 6 percentage points compared with 5 years ago.

When responses were analyzed by age, those 18-44 years old were the most likely to report ever being diagnosed with depression or currently having the illness. About one-third of younger adults have ever been diagnosed, and more than 1 in 5 said they currently have depression.

Dr. Brendel said awareness and reduced stigma could be adding to the rising rates of depression.

“We’re making it easier to talk about mental health and looking at it as part of our overall wellness, just like physical health,” she said. “People are aware of depression, and people are seeking help for it.”

If you or someone you know needs help, dial 988 for support from the national Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. It’s free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can also visit 988lifeline.org and choose the chat feature.

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

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Deep sleep may function as a buffer against cognitive decline in older adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology by protecting cognitive reserve, new research suggests.

Investigators found that deep sleep, also known as non-REM (NREM) slow-wave sleep, can protect memory function in cognitively normal adults with a high beta-amyloid burden.

“Think of deep sleep almost like a life raft that keeps memory afloat, rather than memory getting dragged down by the weight of Alzheimer’s disease pathology,” senior investigator Matthew Walker, PhD, professor of neuroscience and psychology, University of California, Berkeley, said in a news release.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Resilience factor

Studying resilience to existing brain pathology is “an exciting new research direction,” lead author Zsófia Zavecz, PhD, with the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview.

“That is, what factors explain the individual differences in cognitive function despite the same level of brain pathology, and how do some people with significant pathology have largely preserved memory?” she added.

The study included 62 cognitively normal older adults from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study.

Sleep EEG recordings were obtained over 2 nights in a sleep lab and PET scans were used to quantify beta-amyloid. Half of the participants had high beta-amyloid burden and half were beta-amyloid negative.

After the sleep studies, all participants completed a memory task involving matching names to faces.

The results suggest that deep NREM slow-wave sleep significantly moderates the effect of beta-amyloid status on memory function.

Specifically, NREM slow-wave activity selectively supported superior memory function in adults with high beta-amyloid burden, who are most in need of cognitive reserve (B = 2.694, P = .019), the researchers report.

In contrast, adults without significant beta-amyloid pathological burden – and thus without the same need for cognitive reserve – did not similarly benefit from NREM slow-wave activity (B = –0.115, P = .876).

The findings remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, gray matter atrophy, and previously identified cognitive reserve factors, such as education and physical activity.

Dr. Zavecz said there are several potential reasons why deep sleep may support cognitive reserve.

One is that during deep sleep specifically, memories are replayed in the brain, and this results in a “neural reorganization” that helps stabilize the memory and make it more permanent.

“Other explanations include deep sleep’s role in maintaining homeostasis in the brain’s capacity to form new neural connections and providing an optimal brain state for the clearance of toxins interfering with healthy brain functioning,” she noted.

“The extent to which sleep could offer a protective buffer against severe cognitive impairment remains to be tested. However, this study is the first step in hopefully a series of new research that will investigate sleep as a cognitive reserve factor,” said Dr. Zavecz.
 

Encouraging data

Reached for comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said although the study sample is small, the results are “encouraging because sleep is a modifiable factor and can therefore be targeted.”

“More work is needed in a larger population before we can fully leverage this stage of sleep to reduce the risk of developing cognitive decline,” Dr. Griffin said.

Also weighing in on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the study is “exciting on two fronts – we may have an additional marker for the development of Alzheimer’s disease to predict risk and track disease, but also targets for early intervention with sleep architecture–enhancing therapies, be they drug, device, or digital.”

“For the sake of our brain health, we all must get very familiar with the concept of cognitive or brain reserve,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“Brain reserve refers to our ability to buttress against the threat of dementia and classically it’s been associated with ongoing brain stimulation (i.e., higher education, cognitively demanding job),” he noted.

“This line of research now opens the door that optimal sleep health – especially deep NREM slow wave sleep – correlates with greater brain reserve against Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Walker serves as an advisor to and has equity interest in Bryte, Shuni, Oura, and StimScience. Dr. Zavecz and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deep sleep may function as a buffer against cognitive decline in older adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology by protecting cognitive reserve, new research suggests.

Investigators found that deep sleep, also known as non-REM (NREM) slow-wave sleep, can protect memory function in cognitively normal adults with a high beta-amyloid burden.

“Think of deep sleep almost like a life raft that keeps memory afloat, rather than memory getting dragged down by the weight of Alzheimer’s disease pathology,” senior investigator Matthew Walker, PhD, professor of neuroscience and psychology, University of California, Berkeley, said in a news release.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Resilience factor

Studying resilience to existing brain pathology is “an exciting new research direction,” lead author Zsófia Zavecz, PhD, with the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview.

“That is, what factors explain the individual differences in cognitive function despite the same level of brain pathology, and how do some people with significant pathology have largely preserved memory?” she added.

The study included 62 cognitively normal older adults from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study.

Sleep EEG recordings were obtained over 2 nights in a sleep lab and PET scans were used to quantify beta-amyloid. Half of the participants had high beta-amyloid burden and half were beta-amyloid negative.

After the sleep studies, all participants completed a memory task involving matching names to faces.

The results suggest that deep NREM slow-wave sleep significantly moderates the effect of beta-amyloid status on memory function.

Specifically, NREM slow-wave activity selectively supported superior memory function in adults with high beta-amyloid burden, who are most in need of cognitive reserve (B = 2.694, P = .019), the researchers report.

In contrast, adults without significant beta-amyloid pathological burden – and thus without the same need for cognitive reserve – did not similarly benefit from NREM slow-wave activity (B = –0.115, P = .876).

The findings remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, gray matter atrophy, and previously identified cognitive reserve factors, such as education and physical activity.

Dr. Zavecz said there are several potential reasons why deep sleep may support cognitive reserve.

One is that during deep sleep specifically, memories are replayed in the brain, and this results in a “neural reorganization” that helps stabilize the memory and make it more permanent.

“Other explanations include deep sleep’s role in maintaining homeostasis in the brain’s capacity to form new neural connections and providing an optimal brain state for the clearance of toxins interfering with healthy brain functioning,” she noted.

“The extent to which sleep could offer a protective buffer against severe cognitive impairment remains to be tested. However, this study is the first step in hopefully a series of new research that will investigate sleep as a cognitive reserve factor,” said Dr. Zavecz.
 

Encouraging data

Reached for comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said although the study sample is small, the results are “encouraging because sleep is a modifiable factor and can therefore be targeted.”

“More work is needed in a larger population before we can fully leverage this stage of sleep to reduce the risk of developing cognitive decline,” Dr. Griffin said.

Also weighing in on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the study is “exciting on two fronts – we may have an additional marker for the development of Alzheimer’s disease to predict risk and track disease, but also targets for early intervention with sleep architecture–enhancing therapies, be they drug, device, or digital.”

“For the sake of our brain health, we all must get very familiar with the concept of cognitive or brain reserve,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“Brain reserve refers to our ability to buttress against the threat of dementia and classically it’s been associated with ongoing brain stimulation (i.e., higher education, cognitively demanding job),” he noted.

“This line of research now opens the door that optimal sleep health – especially deep NREM slow wave sleep – correlates with greater brain reserve against Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Walker serves as an advisor to and has equity interest in Bryte, Shuni, Oura, and StimScience. Dr. Zavecz and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deep sleep may function as a buffer against cognitive decline in older adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology by protecting cognitive reserve, new research suggests.

Investigators found that deep sleep, also known as non-REM (NREM) slow-wave sleep, can protect memory function in cognitively normal adults with a high beta-amyloid burden.

“Think of deep sleep almost like a life raft that keeps memory afloat, rather than memory getting dragged down by the weight of Alzheimer’s disease pathology,” senior investigator Matthew Walker, PhD, professor of neuroscience and psychology, University of California, Berkeley, said in a news release.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Resilience factor

Studying resilience to existing brain pathology is “an exciting new research direction,” lead author Zsófia Zavecz, PhD, with the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview.

“That is, what factors explain the individual differences in cognitive function despite the same level of brain pathology, and how do some people with significant pathology have largely preserved memory?” she added.

The study included 62 cognitively normal older adults from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study.

Sleep EEG recordings were obtained over 2 nights in a sleep lab and PET scans were used to quantify beta-amyloid. Half of the participants had high beta-amyloid burden and half were beta-amyloid negative.

After the sleep studies, all participants completed a memory task involving matching names to faces.

The results suggest that deep NREM slow-wave sleep significantly moderates the effect of beta-amyloid status on memory function.

Specifically, NREM slow-wave activity selectively supported superior memory function in adults with high beta-amyloid burden, who are most in need of cognitive reserve (B = 2.694, P = .019), the researchers report.

In contrast, adults without significant beta-amyloid pathological burden – and thus without the same need for cognitive reserve – did not similarly benefit from NREM slow-wave activity (B = –0.115, P = .876).

The findings remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, gray matter atrophy, and previously identified cognitive reserve factors, such as education and physical activity.

Dr. Zavecz said there are several potential reasons why deep sleep may support cognitive reserve.

One is that during deep sleep specifically, memories are replayed in the brain, and this results in a “neural reorganization” that helps stabilize the memory and make it more permanent.

“Other explanations include deep sleep’s role in maintaining homeostasis in the brain’s capacity to form new neural connections and providing an optimal brain state for the clearance of toxins interfering with healthy brain functioning,” she noted.

“The extent to which sleep could offer a protective buffer against severe cognitive impairment remains to be tested. However, this study is the first step in hopefully a series of new research that will investigate sleep as a cognitive reserve factor,” said Dr. Zavecz.
 

Encouraging data

Reached for comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said although the study sample is small, the results are “encouraging because sleep is a modifiable factor and can therefore be targeted.”

“More work is needed in a larger population before we can fully leverage this stage of sleep to reduce the risk of developing cognitive decline,” Dr. Griffin said.

Also weighing in on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the study is “exciting on two fronts – we may have an additional marker for the development of Alzheimer’s disease to predict risk and track disease, but also targets for early intervention with sleep architecture–enhancing therapies, be they drug, device, or digital.”

“For the sake of our brain health, we all must get very familiar with the concept of cognitive or brain reserve,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“Brain reserve refers to our ability to buttress against the threat of dementia and classically it’s been associated with ongoing brain stimulation (i.e., higher education, cognitively demanding job),” he noted.

“This line of research now opens the door that optimal sleep health – especially deep NREM slow wave sleep – correlates with greater brain reserve against Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Walker serves as an advisor to and has equity interest in Bryte, Shuni, Oura, and StimScience. Dr. Zavecz and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant financial relationships.

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