Mental Health

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

A genome-wide association study (GWAS) of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (SITB) has identified significant cross-ancestry risk loci. The findings provide further evidence of a genetic basis for SITB.

“It’s really important for us to continue to study the genetic risk factors for suicidal behaviors so we can really understand the biology and develop better treatments,” study investigator Allison E. Ashley-Koch, PhD, professor in the department of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry).
 

SITB heritability

Suicide is a leading cause of death, particularly among individuals aged 15-29 years. Whereas the global rate of suicide has decreased by 36% in the past 20 years, the rate in the United States has increased by 35%, with the greatest rise in military veterans.

Twin studies suggest heritability for SITB is between 30% and 55%, but the molecular genetic basis of SITB remains elusive.

To address this research gap, investigators conducted a study of 633,778 U.S. military veterans from the Million Veteran Program (MVP) cohort. Of these, 71% had European ancestry, 19% had African ancestry, 8% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian. Just under 10% of the sample was female.

Study participants donated a blood sample and agreed to have their genetic information linked with their electronic health record data.

From diagnostic codes and other sources, researchers identified 121,211 individuals with SITB. They classified participants with no documented lifetime history of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death as controls.

Rates of SITB differed significantly by ancestry – 25% in those with African or Hispanic ancestry, 21% in those with Asian ancestry, and 16.8% in those with European ancestry. Rates also differed by age and sex; those with SITB were younger and more likely to be female.

In addition to age and sex, covariates included “genetic principal components,” which Dr. Ashley-Koch said accounts for combining data of individuals with different ethnic/racial backgrounds.

Through meta-analysis, the investigators identified seven genome-wide, significant cross-ancestry risk loci.

To evaluate whether the findings could be replicated, researchers used the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC), a primarily civilian international consortium of roughly 550,000 individuals of mostly European ancestry.

The analysis showed the top replicated cross-ancestry risk locus was rs6557168, an intronic single-nucleotide variant (SNV) in the ESR1 gene that encodes an estrogen receptor. Previous work identified ESR1 as a causal genetic driver gene for development of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, both of which are risk factors for SITB among veterans.

The second-strongest replicated cross-ancestry locus was rs12808482, an intronic variant in the DRD2 gene, which encodes the D₂ dopamine-receptor subtype. The authors noted DRD2 is highly expressed in brain tissue and has been associated with numerous psychiatric phenotypes.

Research suggests DRD2 is associated with other risk factors for SITB, such as schizophrenia, mood disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, but DRD2 could also contribute to suicide risk directly. The authors noted it is highly expressed in the prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, substantia nigra, and hippocampus.
 

Outstanding candidate gene

The study revealed a cross-ancestry GWS association for rs10671545, a variant in DCC, which is “also an outstanding candidate gene,” the investigators write.

They note it is expressed in brain tissue, is involved in synaptic plasticity, axon guidance, and circadian entrainment, and has been associated with multiple psychiatric phenotypes.

Researchers also found what they called “intriguing” cross-ancestry GWS associations for the TRAF3 gene, which regulates type-1 interferon production. Many patients receiving interferon therapy develop major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation.

TRAF3 is also associated with antisocial behavior, substance use, and ADHD. Lithium – a standard treatment for bipolar disorder that reduces suicide risk – modulates the expression of TRAF3.

Dr. Ashley-Koch noted the replication of these loci (ESR1, DRD2, TRAF3, and DCC) was in a population of mostly White civilians. “This suggests to us that at least some of the risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors does cross ancestry and also crosses military and civilian populations.”

It was “exciting” that all four genes the study focused on had previously been implicated in other psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Ashley-Koch. “What gave us a little more confidence, above and beyond the replication, was that these genes are somehow important for psychiatric disorders, and not any psychiatric disorders, but the ones that are also associated with a high risk of suicide behavior, such as depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, and ADHD.”

The findings will not have an immediate impact on clinical practice, said Dr. Ashley-Koch.

“We need to take the next step, which is to try to understand how these genetic factors may impact risk and what else is happening biologically to increase that risk. Then once we do that, hopefully we can develop some new treatments,” she added.
 

‘Valuable and noble’ research

Commenting on the study, Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said this kind of genetic research is “valuable and noble.”

Researchers have long been interested in risk factors for suicide among military personnel and veterans, said Dr. Ritchie. Evidence to date suggests being a young male is a risk factor as is feeling excluded or not fitting into the unit, and drug or alcohol addiction.

Dr. Ritchie noted other psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, are at least partially inherited.

She noted the study’s findings should not be used to discriminate against those who might have the identified genetic loci without clearer evidence of their impact.

“If we were able to identify these genes, would we start screening everybody who joins the military to see if they have these genes, and how would that impact the ability to recruit or retain personnel?”

She agreed additional work is needed to determine if and how carrying these genes might impact clinical care.

In addition, she pointed out that behavior is influenced not only by genetic load but also by environment. “This study may show the impact of the genetic load a little bit more clearly; right now, we tend to look at environmental factors.”

The study was supported by an award from the Clinical Science Research and Development (CSR&D) service of the Veterans Health Administration’s Office of Research and Development. The work was also supported in part by the joint U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Energy MVP CHAMPION program.

Dr. Ashley-Koch reported grants from Veterans Administration during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors report relationships with industry, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Ritchie reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A genome-wide association study (GWAS) of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (SITB) has identified significant cross-ancestry risk loci. The findings provide further evidence of a genetic basis for SITB.

“It’s really important for us to continue to study the genetic risk factors for suicidal behaviors so we can really understand the biology and develop better treatments,” study investigator Allison E. Ashley-Koch, PhD, professor in the department of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry).
 

SITB heritability

Suicide is a leading cause of death, particularly among individuals aged 15-29 years. Whereas the global rate of suicide has decreased by 36% in the past 20 years, the rate in the United States has increased by 35%, with the greatest rise in military veterans.

Twin studies suggest heritability for SITB is between 30% and 55%, but the molecular genetic basis of SITB remains elusive.

To address this research gap, investigators conducted a study of 633,778 U.S. military veterans from the Million Veteran Program (MVP) cohort. Of these, 71% had European ancestry, 19% had African ancestry, 8% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian. Just under 10% of the sample was female.

Study participants donated a blood sample and agreed to have their genetic information linked with their electronic health record data.

From diagnostic codes and other sources, researchers identified 121,211 individuals with SITB. They classified participants with no documented lifetime history of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death as controls.

Rates of SITB differed significantly by ancestry – 25% in those with African or Hispanic ancestry, 21% in those with Asian ancestry, and 16.8% in those with European ancestry. Rates also differed by age and sex; those with SITB were younger and more likely to be female.

In addition to age and sex, covariates included “genetic principal components,” which Dr. Ashley-Koch said accounts for combining data of individuals with different ethnic/racial backgrounds.

Through meta-analysis, the investigators identified seven genome-wide, significant cross-ancestry risk loci.

To evaluate whether the findings could be replicated, researchers used the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC), a primarily civilian international consortium of roughly 550,000 individuals of mostly European ancestry.

The analysis showed the top replicated cross-ancestry risk locus was rs6557168, an intronic single-nucleotide variant (SNV) in the ESR1 gene that encodes an estrogen receptor. Previous work identified ESR1 as a causal genetic driver gene for development of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, both of which are risk factors for SITB among veterans.

The second-strongest replicated cross-ancestry locus was rs12808482, an intronic variant in the DRD2 gene, which encodes the D₂ dopamine-receptor subtype. The authors noted DRD2 is highly expressed in brain tissue and has been associated with numerous psychiatric phenotypes.

Research suggests DRD2 is associated with other risk factors for SITB, such as schizophrenia, mood disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, but DRD2 could also contribute to suicide risk directly. The authors noted it is highly expressed in the prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, substantia nigra, and hippocampus.
 

Outstanding candidate gene

The study revealed a cross-ancestry GWS association for rs10671545, a variant in DCC, which is “also an outstanding candidate gene,” the investigators write.

They note it is expressed in brain tissue, is involved in synaptic plasticity, axon guidance, and circadian entrainment, and has been associated with multiple psychiatric phenotypes.

Researchers also found what they called “intriguing” cross-ancestry GWS associations for the TRAF3 gene, which regulates type-1 interferon production. Many patients receiving interferon therapy develop major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation.

TRAF3 is also associated with antisocial behavior, substance use, and ADHD. Lithium – a standard treatment for bipolar disorder that reduces suicide risk – modulates the expression of TRAF3.

Dr. Ashley-Koch noted the replication of these loci (ESR1, DRD2, TRAF3, and DCC) was in a population of mostly White civilians. “This suggests to us that at least some of the risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors does cross ancestry and also crosses military and civilian populations.”

It was “exciting” that all four genes the study focused on had previously been implicated in other psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Ashley-Koch. “What gave us a little more confidence, above and beyond the replication, was that these genes are somehow important for psychiatric disorders, and not any psychiatric disorders, but the ones that are also associated with a high risk of suicide behavior, such as depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, and ADHD.”

The findings will not have an immediate impact on clinical practice, said Dr. Ashley-Koch.

“We need to take the next step, which is to try to understand how these genetic factors may impact risk and what else is happening biologically to increase that risk. Then once we do that, hopefully we can develop some new treatments,” she added.
 

‘Valuable and noble’ research

Commenting on the study, Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said this kind of genetic research is “valuable and noble.”

Researchers have long been interested in risk factors for suicide among military personnel and veterans, said Dr. Ritchie. Evidence to date suggests being a young male is a risk factor as is feeling excluded or not fitting into the unit, and drug or alcohol addiction.

Dr. Ritchie noted other psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, are at least partially inherited.

She noted the study’s findings should not be used to discriminate against those who might have the identified genetic loci without clearer evidence of their impact.

“If we were able to identify these genes, would we start screening everybody who joins the military to see if they have these genes, and how would that impact the ability to recruit or retain personnel?”

She agreed additional work is needed to determine if and how carrying these genes might impact clinical care.

In addition, she pointed out that behavior is influenced not only by genetic load but also by environment. “This study may show the impact of the genetic load a little bit more clearly; right now, we tend to look at environmental factors.”

The study was supported by an award from the Clinical Science Research and Development (CSR&D) service of the Veterans Health Administration’s Office of Research and Development. The work was also supported in part by the joint U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Energy MVP CHAMPION program.

Dr. Ashley-Koch reported grants from Veterans Administration during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors report relationships with industry, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Ritchie reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A genome-wide association study (GWAS) of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (SITB) has identified significant cross-ancestry risk loci. The findings provide further evidence of a genetic basis for SITB.

“It’s really important for us to continue to study the genetic risk factors for suicidal behaviors so we can really understand the biology and develop better treatments,” study investigator Allison E. Ashley-Koch, PhD, professor in the department of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry).
 

SITB heritability

Suicide is a leading cause of death, particularly among individuals aged 15-29 years. Whereas the global rate of suicide has decreased by 36% in the past 20 years, the rate in the United States has increased by 35%, with the greatest rise in military veterans.

Twin studies suggest heritability for SITB is between 30% and 55%, but the molecular genetic basis of SITB remains elusive.

To address this research gap, investigators conducted a study of 633,778 U.S. military veterans from the Million Veteran Program (MVP) cohort. Of these, 71% had European ancestry, 19% had African ancestry, 8% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian. Just under 10% of the sample was female.

Study participants donated a blood sample and agreed to have their genetic information linked with their electronic health record data.

From diagnostic codes and other sources, researchers identified 121,211 individuals with SITB. They classified participants with no documented lifetime history of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death as controls.

Rates of SITB differed significantly by ancestry – 25% in those with African or Hispanic ancestry, 21% in those with Asian ancestry, and 16.8% in those with European ancestry. Rates also differed by age and sex; those with SITB were younger and more likely to be female.

In addition to age and sex, covariates included “genetic principal components,” which Dr. Ashley-Koch said accounts for combining data of individuals with different ethnic/racial backgrounds.

Through meta-analysis, the investigators identified seven genome-wide, significant cross-ancestry risk loci.

To evaluate whether the findings could be replicated, researchers used the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC), a primarily civilian international consortium of roughly 550,000 individuals of mostly European ancestry.

The analysis showed the top replicated cross-ancestry risk locus was rs6557168, an intronic single-nucleotide variant (SNV) in the ESR1 gene that encodes an estrogen receptor. Previous work identified ESR1 as a causal genetic driver gene for development of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, both of which are risk factors for SITB among veterans.

The second-strongest replicated cross-ancestry locus was rs12808482, an intronic variant in the DRD2 gene, which encodes the D₂ dopamine-receptor subtype. The authors noted DRD2 is highly expressed in brain tissue and has been associated with numerous psychiatric phenotypes.

Research suggests DRD2 is associated with other risk factors for SITB, such as schizophrenia, mood disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, but DRD2 could also contribute to suicide risk directly. The authors noted it is highly expressed in the prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, substantia nigra, and hippocampus.
 

Outstanding candidate gene

The study revealed a cross-ancestry GWS association for rs10671545, a variant in DCC, which is “also an outstanding candidate gene,” the investigators write.

They note it is expressed in brain tissue, is involved in synaptic plasticity, axon guidance, and circadian entrainment, and has been associated with multiple psychiatric phenotypes.

Researchers also found what they called “intriguing” cross-ancestry GWS associations for the TRAF3 gene, which regulates type-1 interferon production. Many patients receiving interferon therapy develop major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation.

TRAF3 is also associated with antisocial behavior, substance use, and ADHD. Lithium – a standard treatment for bipolar disorder that reduces suicide risk – modulates the expression of TRAF3.

Dr. Ashley-Koch noted the replication of these loci (ESR1, DRD2, TRAF3, and DCC) was in a population of mostly White civilians. “This suggests to us that at least some of the risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors does cross ancestry and also crosses military and civilian populations.”

It was “exciting” that all four genes the study focused on had previously been implicated in other psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Ashley-Koch. “What gave us a little more confidence, above and beyond the replication, was that these genes are somehow important for psychiatric disorders, and not any psychiatric disorders, but the ones that are also associated with a high risk of suicide behavior, such as depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, and ADHD.”

The findings will not have an immediate impact on clinical practice, said Dr. Ashley-Koch.

“We need to take the next step, which is to try to understand how these genetic factors may impact risk and what else is happening biologically to increase that risk. Then once we do that, hopefully we can develop some new treatments,” she added.
 

‘Valuable and noble’ research

Commenting on the study, Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said this kind of genetic research is “valuable and noble.”

Researchers have long been interested in risk factors for suicide among military personnel and veterans, said Dr. Ritchie. Evidence to date suggests being a young male is a risk factor as is feeling excluded or not fitting into the unit, and drug or alcohol addiction.

Dr. Ritchie noted other psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, are at least partially inherited.

She noted the study’s findings should not be used to discriminate against those who might have the identified genetic loci without clearer evidence of their impact.

“If we were able to identify these genes, would we start screening everybody who joins the military to see if they have these genes, and how would that impact the ability to recruit or retain personnel?”

She agreed additional work is needed to determine if and how carrying these genes might impact clinical care.

In addition, she pointed out that behavior is influenced not only by genetic load but also by environment. “This study may show the impact of the genetic load a little bit more clearly; right now, we tend to look at environmental factors.”

The study was supported by an award from the Clinical Science Research and Development (CSR&D) service of the Veterans Health Administration’s Office of Research and Development. The work was also supported in part by the joint U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Energy MVP CHAMPION program.

Dr. Ashley-Koch reported grants from Veterans Administration during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors report relationships with industry, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Ritchie reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The administration of IV ketamine over the course of 2 months can improve treatment resistant depression (TRD) and executive function in older adults, findings from a new pilot study suggest.

Results showed nearly 50% of participants responded to ketamine and 25% achieved complete remission from TRD, as measured by scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

“Our pilot study suggests that IV ketamine is well-tolerated, safe, and associated with improvement in late-life TRD,” co-investigator Marie Anne Gebara, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

Dr. Gebara pointed out the treatment “may not be appropriate for all patients with TRD,” such as those with a history of psychotic symptoms or uncontrolled hypertension; but “it appears to be a promising option.”

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Lack of data in seniors

Although ketamine has been shown in prior research to rapidly reduce suicidal ideation in adults, there has been a lack of data on its efficacy and safety in older adults, the current investigators note.

“Almost 50% of older adults suffering from depression have TRD, which is a leading cause of disability, excess mortality from suicide, and dementia,” Dr. Gebara said.

She added that after two failed trials of antidepressants, “older adults have few evidence-based choices: aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or electroconvulsive therapy. Novel treatments with rapid benefit are needed as long-term outcomes are poor and recurrence rates are high.”

Dr. Gebara and colleagues at five sites (Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, University of Toronto, University of Pittsburgh, and Washington University in St. Louis) each enrolled five participants aged 60 and older into the pilot study between October 2020 and November 2021, for a total of 25 participants (mean age, 71 years).

Each participant was recruited from patient registries or referred by behavioral health or primary care providers and diagnosed with TRD, which was defined as an episode of major depressive disorder without psychotic features that persisted despite two or more trials of antidepressants including at least one evidence-based second-line treatment.

Participants had to take an oral antidepressant dosage for at least 1 month prior to the start of the IV ketamine infusions, and continue their antidepressant for the length of the trial.

They received IV ketamine twice weekly for 4 weeks. The dosage was weight-dependent.

At the end of the 4 weeks, participants who achieved a MADRS total score of less than 10 or had a 30% or greater reduction from their baseline MADRS score entered another 4-week phase of the trial. This phase consisted of once-weekly administration of IV ketamine.
 

Larger plans

Results showed 15 of the 25 participants (60%) experienced a 30% or higher reduction in MADRS scores in the first phase of the study. The mean change in MADRS total score from the beginning to the end of the first phase was a decrease of 9.4 points (P < .01).

At the end of the continuation phase, half (48%) met criteria for response and 27% met criteria for remission.

After ketamine administration, the researchers also found an improvement in Fluid Cognition Composite Score (Cohen’s d value = .61), indicating a medium to large effect size, and in three measures of executive function.

Overall, adverse events were rare and did not keep patients from participating in the study, the investigators note. Five of the 25 participants reported infusion-induced hypertension that was transient.

Study limitations cited include the small sample size and the absence of randomization and placebo control or comparison treatment.

“We were very pleased with these findings because they establish the safety of this novel intervention in older adults,” Dr. Gebara said.

“After establishing safety and tolerability, we can plan for larger, randomized controlled trials that will allow us to determine the effectiveness of IV ketamine for older adults with TRD,” she added.
 

Multiple mechanisms

In a comment, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University and director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., noted multiple mechanisms likely contribute to the antidepressant effects of ketamine.

Dr. Sanacora has independently researched the effects of ketamine but was not involved with the current study.

“Much of the work to date has focused on the drug’s proximal effects on the glutamatergic neurotransmitter system and the resulting enhancement of adaptive neuroplasticity in several brain regions,” he said.

“However, there is also evidence to suggest other neurotransmitter systems and possibly even neuroinflammatory regulators are also contributing to the effect,” Dr. Sanacora added.

He noted that these mechanisms are also likely amplified by the “hope, optimism, expectations, and improved medical management overall that are known to be associated with treatments that require close monitoring and follow-up with health care providers.”

Dr. Gebara noted that “internal/department funds at each site” were used to support the study. She also reported receiving support from Otsuka US. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Sanacora has reported having “no major direct conflicts” with the study.

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

The administration of IV ketamine over the course of 2 months can improve treatment resistant depression (TRD) and executive function in older adults, findings from a new pilot study suggest.

Results showed nearly 50% of participants responded to ketamine and 25% achieved complete remission from TRD, as measured by scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

“Our pilot study suggests that IV ketamine is well-tolerated, safe, and associated with improvement in late-life TRD,” co-investigator Marie Anne Gebara, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

Dr. Gebara pointed out the treatment “may not be appropriate for all patients with TRD,” such as those with a history of psychotic symptoms or uncontrolled hypertension; but “it appears to be a promising option.”

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Lack of data in seniors

Although ketamine has been shown in prior research to rapidly reduce suicidal ideation in adults, there has been a lack of data on its efficacy and safety in older adults, the current investigators note.

“Almost 50% of older adults suffering from depression have TRD, which is a leading cause of disability, excess mortality from suicide, and dementia,” Dr. Gebara said.

She added that after two failed trials of antidepressants, “older adults have few evidence-based choices: aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or electroconvulsive therapy. Novel treatments with rapid benefit are needed as long-term outcomes are poor and recurrence rates are high.”

Dr. Gebara and colleagues at five sites (Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, University of Toronto, University of Pittsburgh, and Washington University in St. Louis) each enrolled five participants aged 60 and older into the pilot study between October 2020 and November 2021, for a total of 25 participants (mean age, 71 years).

Each participant was recruited from patient registries or referred by behavioral health or primary care providers and diagnosed with TRD, which was defined as an episode of major depressive disorder without psychotic features that persisted despite two or more trials of antidepressants including at least one evidence-based second-line treatment.

Participants had to take an oral antidepressant dosage for at least 1 month prior to the start of the IV ketamine infusions, and continue their antidepressant for the length of the trial.

They received IV ketamine twice weekly for 4 weeks. The dosage was weight-dependent.

At the end of the 4 weeks, participants who achieved a MADRS total score of less than 10 or had a 30% or greater reduction from their baseline MADRS score entered another 4-week phase of the trial. This phase consisted of once-weekly administration of IV ketamine.
 

Larger plans

Results showed 15 of the 25 participants (60%) experienced a 30% or higher reduction in MADRS scores in the first phase of the study. The mean change in MADRS total score from the beginning to the end of the first phase was a decrease of 9.4 points (P < .01).

At the end of the continuation phase, half (48%) met criteria for response and 27% met criteria for remission.

After ketamine administration, the researchers also found an improvement in Fluid Cognition Composite Score (Cohen’s d value = .61), indicating a medium to large effect size, and in three measures of executive function.

Overall, adverse events were rare and did not keep patients from participating in the study, the investigators note. Five of the 25 participants reported infusion-induced hypertension that was transient.

Study limitations cited include the small sample size and the absence of randomization and placebo control or comparison treatment.

“We were very pleased with these findings because they establish the safety of this novel intervention in older adults,” Dr. Gebara said.

“After establishing safety and tolerability, we can plan for larger, randomized controlled trials that will allow us to determine the effectiveness of IV ketamine for older adults with TRD,” she added.
 

Multiple mechanisms

In a comment, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University and director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., noted multiple mechanisms likely contribute to the antidepressant effects of ketamine.

Dr. Sanacora has independently researched the effects of ketamine but was not involved with the current study.

“Much of the work to date has focused on the drug’s proximal effects on the glutamatergic neurotransmitter system and the resulting enhancement of adaptive neuroplasticity in several brain regions,” he said.

“However, there is also evidence to suggest other neurotransmitter systems and possibly even neuroinflammatory regulators are also contributing to the effect,” Dr. Sanacora added.

He noted that these mechanisms are also likely amplified by the “hope, optimism, expectations, and improved medical management overall that are known to be associated with treatments that require close monitoring and follow-up with health care providers.”

Dr. Gebara noted that “internal/department funds at each site” were used to support the study. She also reported receiving support from Otsuka US. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Sanacora has reported having “no major direct conflicts” with the study.

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

The administration of IV ketamine over the course of 2 months can improve treatment resistant depression (TRD) and executive function in older adults, findings from a new pilot study suggest.

Results showed nearly 50% of participants responded to ketamine and 25% achieved complete remission from TRD, as measured by scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

“Our pilot study suggests that IV ketamine is well-tolerated, safe, and associated with improvement in late-life TRD,” co-investigator Marie Anne Gebara, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

Dr. Gebara pointed out the treatment “may not be appropriate for all patients with TRD,” such as those with a history of psychotic symptoms or uncontrolled hypertension; but “it appears to be a promising option.”

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Lack of data in seniors

Although ketamine has been shown in prior research to rapidly reduce suicidal ideation in adults, there has been a lack of data on its efficacy and safety in older adults, the current investigators note.

“Almost 50% of older adults suffering from depression have TRD, which is a leading cause of disability, excess mortality from suicide, and dementia,” Dr. Gebara said.

She added that after two failed trials of antidepressants, “older adults have few evidence-based choices: aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or electroconvulsive therapy. Novel treatments with rapid benefit are needed as long-term outcomes are poor and recurrence rates are high.”

Dr. Gebara and colleagues at five sites (Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, University of Toronto, University of Pittsburgh, and Washington University in St. Louis) each enrolled five participants aged 60 and older into the pilot study between October 2020 and November 2021, for a total of 25 participants (mean age, 71 years).

Each participant was recruited from patient registries or referred by behavioral health or primary care providers and diagnosed with TRD, which was defined as an episode of major depressive disorder without psychotic features that persisted despite two or more trials of antidepressants including at least one evidence-based second-line treatment.

Participants had to take an oral antidepressant dosage for at least 1 month prior to the start of the IV ketamine infusions, and continue their antidepressant for the length of the trial.

They received IV ketamine twice weekly for 4 weeks. The dosage was weight-dependent.

At the end of the 4 weeks, participants who achieved a MADRS total score of less than 10 or had a 30% or greater reduction from their baseline MADRS score entered another 4-week phase of the trial. This phase consisted of once-weekly administration of IV ketamine.
 

Larger plans

Results showed 15 of the 25 participants (60%) experienced a 30% or higher reduction in MADRS scores in the first phase of the study. The mean change in MADRS total score from the beginning to the end of the first phase was a decrease of 9.4 points (P < .01).

At the end of the continuation phase, half (48%) met criteria for response and 27% met criteria for remission.

After ketamine administration, the researchers also found an improvement in Fluid Cognition Composite Score (Cohen’s d value = .61), indicating a medium to large effect size, and in three measures of executive function.

Overall, adverse events were rare and did not keep patients from participating in the study, the investigators note. Five of the 25 participants reported infusion-induced hypertension that was transient.

Study limitations cited include the small sample size and the absence of randomization and placebo control or comparison treatment.

“We were very pleased with these findings because they establish the safety of this novel intervention in older adults,” Dr. Gebara said.

“After establishing safety and tolerability, we can plan for larger, randomized controlled trials that will allow us to determine the effectiveness of IV ketamine for older adults with TRD,” she added.
 

Multiple mechanisms

In a comment, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University and director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., noted multiple mechanisms likely contribute to the antidepressant effects of ketamine.

Dr. Sanacora has independently researched the effects of ketamine but was not involved with the current study.

“Much of the work to date has focused on the drug’s proximal effects on the glutamatergic neurotransmitter system and the resulting enhancement of adaptive neuroplasticity in several brain regions,” he said.

“However, there is also evidence to suggest other neurotransmitter systems and possibly even neuroinflammatory regulators are also contributing to the effect,” Dr. Sanacora added.

He noted that these mechanisms are also likely amplified by the “hope, optimism, expectations, and improved medical management overall that are known to be associated with treatments that require close monitoring and follow-up with health care providers.”

Dr. Gebara noted that “internal/department funds at each site” were used to support the study. She also reported receiving support from Otsuka US. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Sanacora has reported having “no major direct conflicts” with the study.

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

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is significantly linked to comorbid psychiatric conditions and a higher risk for mortality and can take more than a year to be diagnosed, new research shows.

In a population study of more than 145,000 patients, participants with TRD used outpatient resources and missed work at twice the rate as patients with treatment-responsive depression. They also had a threefold higher number of days spent in hospital.

Patients with TRD also had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed, compared with their matched counterparts with non-TRD depression, and their self-harm rates were twice as high.

In addition, it took an average of 1.5 years for patients with TRD to undergo two unsuccessful treatment attempts and reach their third treatment trial, which is several months longer than is recommended for assessing the efficacy of a treatment for depression.

“It seemed like ineffective treatments were allowed to continue for longer than should be needed and what is recommended in current guidelines,” lead investigator Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry in the department of clinical neuroscience and head of the mood disorder section at the Northern Stockholm Psychiatry Clinic, told this news organization.

“If this is true, patients would most likely benefit from a more frequent evaluation of treatment effect and, when needed, optimization of ineffective treatments,” Dr. Lundberg said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

More anxiety, sleep disorders, substance use

Using data from the Region Stockholm’s administrative health care database and the Swedish social insurance agency, the investigators identified nearly 160,000 unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) episodes in 145,577 patients who sought treatment between January 2012 and December 2017.

Of those episodes, 12,800 fulfilled criteria for TRD, which meant there were three or more treatment trials with antidepressants, add-on medication (aripiprazole, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and/or risperidone), electroshock therapy, or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Each new treatment had to be initiated within the MDD episode more than 28 days after previous treatment initiation.

Investigators matched each TRD episode with up to five non-TRD episodes and found that patients with TRD were more likely to have comorbid psychiatric conditions than were their non-TRD counterparts.

This included anxiety (60% vs. 44%, respectively), sleep disorders (28% vs. 19%), substance use (15% vs. 11%) or alcohol use (10% vs. 7%) disorders, and personality disorders (6% vs. 3%). Rates of intentional self-harm were also higher in the TRD group (5% vs. 2%).

Perhaps in part because of the comorbid problems, patients with TRD had a more than 50% higher mean number of outpatient physician visits 1 year before and after the index date, defined as the date of the initiation of the third treatment trial.

The most important predictor of TRD depression was the severity of depression at diagnosis on the self-rated Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the researchers report.
 

Not generalizable?

Patients with TRD also had three times the number of inpatient bed days as did those with depression that responded to treatment (mean, 3.9 days vs. 1.3 days, respectively) and significantly more lost workdays (132.3 days vs. 58.7 days).

Most notably, patients with TRD episodes had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed than did their non-TRD counterparts.

“This finding in itself could be a reason to focus on how to avoid putting a patient on the TRD path. This could be done through prospective studies comparing different treatment options and their risk of leading to TRD,” Dr. Lundberg said.

Interestingly, he noted that the study results may not be generalizable to other populations, such as the United States.

“The biggest difference between Stockholm and the U.S. may not be the demographics, but the access to health care,” Dr. Lundberg said.

“In Stockholm, there is a universal access health care system, meaning that these results are what you can expect if you are able to get care. In the U.S., this is not the case, meaning that people outside the health care system may fare worse than what our study suggests,” he added.
 

Quality over quantity

In a comment, Sidney Zisook, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said that the findings “highlight the need for our field to develop better-tolerated, more effective, and sustainable treatments for major depressive disorder and for better education of clinicians so they can employ up-to-date, evidence-based treatments and integrate sound clinical guidelines into clinical practice.”

Dr. Zisook has independently researched TRD but was not involved with the current study.

He noted that it was “striking how long patients remained on the same antidepressant, apparently despite suboptimal outcomes, without taking next steps.”

However, Dr. Zisook expressed concern that the diagnosis of TRD in the study was solely on the basis of the number of treatment trials for an episode.

“Somebody might have had three different antidepressant trials because they had had three episodes with interepisode periods of recovery followed by recurrent episodes. That would not be considered treatment-resistant depression,” he said.

Dr. Zisook also noted that patients might be given a new antidepressant for reasons other than treatment resistance. “For example, they lost an initial good response – this used to be called Prozac poop out, were nonadherent, or had troublesome side effects,” he said.

“We usually define treatment-resistant depression not only on the basis of number of trials but also the quality of the trial, taking both dose and duration into account,” Dr. Zisook added.

The study was funded by Region Stockholm. Dr. Zisook reports receiving research funding from COMPASS Pathways.

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

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is significantly linked to comorbid psychiatric conditions and a higher risk for mortality and can take more than a year to be diagnosed, new research shows.

In a population study of more than 145,000 patients, participants with TRD used outpatient resources and missed work at twice the rate as patients with treatment-responsive depression. They also had a threefold higher number of days spent in hospital.

Patients with TRD also had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed, compared with their matched counterparts with non-TRD depression, and their self-harm rates were twice as high.

In addition, it took an average of 1.5 years for patients with TRD to undergo two unsuccessful treatment attempts and reach their third treatment trial, which is several months longer than is recommended for assessing the efficacy of a treatment for depression.

“It seemed like ineffective treatments were allowed to continue for longer than should be needed and what is recommended in current guidelines,” lead investigator Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry in the department of clinical neuroscience and head of the mood disorder section at the Northern Stockholm Psychiatry Clinic, told this news organization.

“If this is true, patients would most likely benefit from a more frequent evaluation of treatment effect and, when needed, optimization of ineffective treatments,” Dr. Lundberg said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

More anxiety, sleep disorders, substance use

Using data from the Region Stockholm’s administrative health care database and the Swedish social insurance agency, the investigators identified nearly 160,000 unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) episodes in 145,577 patients who sought treatment between January 2012 and December 2017.

Of those episodes, 12,800 fulfilled criteria for TRD, which meant there were three or more treatment trials with antidepressants, add-on medication (aripiprazole, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and/or risperidone), electroshock therapy, or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Each new treatment had to be initiated within the MDD episode more than 28 days after previous treatment initiation.

Investigators matched each TRD episode with up to five non-TRD episodes and found that patients with TRD were more likely to have comorbid psychiatric conditions than were their non-TRD counterparts.

This included anxiety (60% vs. 44%, respectively), sleep disorders (28% vs. 19%), substance use (15% vs. 11%) or alcohol use (10% vs. 7%) disorders, and personality disorders (6% vs. 3%). Rates of intentional self-harm were also higher in the TRD group (5% vs. 2%).

Perhaps in part because of the comorbid problems, patients with TRD had a more than 50% higher mean number of outpatient physician visits 1 year before and after the index date, defined as the date of the initiation of the third treatment trial.

The most important predictor of TRD depression was the severity of depression at diagnosis on the self-rated Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the researchers report.
 

Not generalizable?

Patients with TRD also had three times the number of inpatient bed days as did those with depression that responded to treatment (mean, 3.9 days vs. 1.3 days, respectively) and significantly more lost workdays (132.3 days vs. 58.7 days).

Most notably, patients with TRD episodes had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed than did their non-TRD counterparts.

“This finding in itself could be a reason to focus on how to avoid putting a patient on the TRD path. This could be done through prospective studies comparing different treatment options and their risk of leading to TRD,” Dr. Lundberg said.

Interestingly, he noted that the study results may not be generalizable to other populations, such as the United States.

“The biggest difference between Stockholm and the U.S. may not be the demographics, but the access to health care,” Dr. Lundberg said.

“In Stockholm, there is a universal access health care system, meaning that these results are what you can expect if you are able to get care. In the U.S., this is not the case, meaning that people outside the health care system may fare worse than what our study suggests,” he added.
 

Quality over quantity

In a comment, Sidney Zisook, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said that the findings “highlight the need for our field to develop better-tolerated, more effective, and sustainable treatments for major depressive disorder and for better education of clinicians so they can employ up-to-date, evidence-based treatments and integrate sound clinical guidelines into clinical practice.”

Dr. Zisook has independently researched TRD but was not involved with the current study.

He noted that it was “striking how long patients remained on the same antidepressant, apparently despite suboptimal outcomes, without taking next steps.”

However, Dr. Zisook expressed concern that the diagnosis of TRD in the study was solely on the basis of the number of treatment trials for an episode.

“Somebody might have had three different antidepressant trials because they had had three episodes with interepisode periods of recovery followed by recurrent episodes. That would not be considered treatment-resistant depression,” he said.

Dr. Zisook also noted that patients might be given a new antidepressant for reasons other than treatment resistance. “For example, they lost an initial good response – this used to be called Prozac poop out, were nonadherent, or had troublesome side effects,” he said.

“We usually define treatment-resistant depression not only on the basis of number of trials but also the quality of the trial, taking both dose and duration into account,” Dr. Zisook added.

The study was funded by Region Stockholm. Dr. Zisook reports receiving research funding from COMPASS Pathways.

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

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is significantly linked to comorbid psychiatric conditions and a higher risk for mortality and can take more than a year to be diagnosed, new research shows.

In a population study of more than 145,000 patients, participants with TRD used outpatient resources and missed work at twice the rate as patients with treatment-responsive depression. They also had a threefold higher number of days spent in hospital.

Patients with TRD also had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed, compared with their matched counterparts with non-TRD depression, and their self-harm rates were twice as high.

In addition, it took an average of 1.5 years for patients with TRD to undergo two unsuccessful treatment attempts and reach their third treatment trial, which is several months longer than is recommended for assessing the efficacy of a treatment for depression.

“It seemed like ineffective treatments were allowed to continue for longer than should be needed and what is recommended in current guidelines,” lead investigator Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry in the department of clinical neuroscience and head of the mood disorder section at the Northern Stockholm Psychiatry Clinic, told this news organization.

“If this is true, patients would most likely benefit from a more frequent evaluation of treatment effect and, when needed, optimization of ineffective treatments,” Dr. Lundberg said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

More anxiety, sleep disorders, substance use

Using data from the Region Stockholm’s administrative health care database and the Swedish social insurance agency, the investigators identified nearly 160,000 unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) episodes in 145,577 patients who sought treatment between January 2012 and December 2017.

Of those episodes, 12,800 fulfilled criteria for TRD, which meant there were three or more treatment trials with antidepressants, add-on medication (aripiprazole, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and/or risperidone), electroshock therapy, or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Each new treatment had to be initiated within the MDD episode more than 28 days after previous treatment initiation.

Investigators matched each TRD episode with up to five non-TRD episodes and found that patients with TRD were more likely to have comorbid psychiatric conditions than were their non-TRD counterparts.

This included anxiety (60% vs. 44%, respectively), sleep disorders (28% vs. 19%), substance use (15% vs. 11%) or alcohol use (10% vs. 7%) disorders, and personality disorders (6% vs. 3%). Rates of intentional self-harm were also higher in the TRD group (5% vs. 2%).

Perhaps in part because of the comorbid problems, patients with TRD had a more than 50% higher mean number of outpatient physician visits 1 year before and after the index date, defined as the date of the initiation of the third treatment trial.

The most important predictor of TRD depression was the severity of depression at diagnosis on the self-rated Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the researchers report.
 

Not generalizable?

Patients with TRD also had three times the number of inpatient bed days as did those with depression that responded to treatment (mean, 3.9 days vs. 1.3 days, respectively) and significantly more lost workdays (132.3 days vs. 58.7 days).

Most notably, patients with TRD episodes had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed than did their non-TRD counterparts.

“This finding in itself could be a reason to focus on how to avoid putting a patient on the TRD path. This could be done through prospective studies comparing different treatment options and their risk of leading to TRD,” Dr. Lundberg said.

Interestingly, he noted that the study results may not be generalizable to other populations, such as the United States.

“The biggest difference between Stockholm and the U.S. may not be the demographics, but the access to health care,” Dr. Lundberg said.

“In Stockholm, there is a universal access health care system, meaning that these results are what you can expect if you are able to get care. In the U.S., this is not the case, meaning that people outside the health care system may fare worse than what our study suggests,” he added.
 

Quality over quantity

In a comment, Sidney Zisook, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said that the findings “highlight the need for our field to develop better-tolerated, more effective, and sustainable treatments for major depressive disorder and for better education of clinicians so they can employ up-to-date, evidence-based treatments and integrate sound clinical guidelines into clinical practice.”

Dr. Zisook has independently researched TRD but was not involved with the current study.

He noted that it was “striking how long patients remained on the same antidepressant, apparently despite suboptimal outcomes, without taking next steps.”

However, Dr. Zisook expressed concern that the diagnosis of TRD in the study was solely on the basis of the number of treatment trials for an episode.

“Somebody might have had three different antidepressant trials because they had had three episodes with interepisode periods of recovery followed by recurrent episodes. That would not be considered treatment-resistant depression,” he said.

Dr. Zisook also noted that patients might be given a new antidepressant for reasons other than treatment resistance. “For example, they lost an initial good response – this used to be called Prozac poop out, were nonadherent, or had troublesome side effects,” he said.

“We usually define treatment-resistant depression not only on the basis of number of trials but also the quality of the trial, taking both dose and duration into account,” Dr. Zisook added.

The study was funded by Region Stockholm. Dr. Zisook reports receiving research funding from COMPASS Pathways.

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

Intervening with physical activity appears to mitigate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, a systematic review and meta-analysis of almost 2,500 participants found. Greater reductions were observed for children older than 13 years and those having a diagnosis of mental illness and/or depression versus other conditions, according to Hong Kong researchers reporting in JAMA Pediatrics.

“There is an urgent need to explore novel treatment approaches that can be safely, feasibly, and widely implemented in the daily routine of depressed children and adolescents,” said study coauthor Parco M. Siu, PhD, exercise physiologist and associate professor in the school of public health at the University of Hong Kong, in an interview. “Given the observed association with significant reductions in symptoms, clinical practice guidelines should consider the role of physical activity for improving the mental health of young populations.”

Dr. Siu further noted that while current guidelines suggest psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy for children with this common mood disorder, adherence to these can be problematic, and surveys show that nearly 80% do not receive appropriate disorder-specific medical care.

The analysis

Dr. Siu’s team drew on 21 international studies, including 17 randomized controlled trials, published from 1987 to 2021 and comprising 2,444 young participants, mean age 14, 53% girls. Eligible studies compared the effect of exercise on depression versus a control condition.

In 12 studies, participants had a somatic or psychiatric disorder such as obesity, diabetes, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The mean duration of the prescribed physical activity program was 22 weeks (6-144 weeks), while the frequency of weekly sessions ranged from 2 to 5 days, with 3 days per week most common and mean duration of 50 minutes (30-120 minutes). Regimens ranged from aerobic exercise on fitness equipment such as treadmills, stationary bikes, and ellipticals, to running, swimming, dancing, sports, and exercise games.

In meta-analysis of postintervention differences, physical activity was associated with a significant reduction in the pooled estimate of depressive symptoms compared with the control condition (Hedges g statistic [effect size] = −0.29; 95% confidence interval, −0.47 to −0.10; P = .004). This was driven by moderate to large effect sizes in adolescents (g = −0.44) and children with diagnosed depression (g = −0.75).The differences, however, were not detectable after a mean follow-up of 21 weeks, possibly owing to the limited number of studies with follow-up outcomes, the authors conceded.

Despite the strong association, the mechanisms underlying the antidepressant properties of physical activity remain uncertain. “Potential pathways include the activation of the endocannabinoid system to stimulate the release of endorphins, an increase in the bioavailability of brain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline, which are reduced in depression, as well as long-term changes in brain plasticity,” Dr. Siu said.

In addition, psychosocial and behavioral hypotheses suggest that physical activity can lead to improvements in self-perception, social interactions, and self-confidence. However, he added, depressive phenomenology is multifaceted and individual, so isolating the effects that physical activity have on specific symptoms may not be possible.

Physical activity appears to enhance the treatment of cognitive and affective symptoms in depression, Dr. Siu continued, and a combination of physical activity and pharmacotherapy may also reduce relapse risk, improve adherence to antidepressants, and promote better management of adverse effects, compared with pharmacotherapy alone. “More research is warranted to explain if and how these mechanisms moderate the effect of physical activity, and whether these changes are also present in younger populations,” he said.

Still unanswered is the question of how vigorous activity has to be in order to have an effect, Dr. Siu said. “Future studies should investigate the influence of parameters such as frequency, duration, and supervision of exercise sessions to determine the optimal dose and mode of delivery of the intervention for depressive symptom management.”

But would group activity likely have broader benefits than solitary exercise? “It is still unclear whether there’s a difference between the effect of solitary activities and team sports,” Dr. Siu said.

In an accompanying editorial on the meta-analysis, Eduardo E. Bustamante, PhD, an exercise psychologist in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues called the meta-analysis “part of a potential watershed moment” in the field of exercise as therapy for psychological disorders. “The work is timely, aligning with the rise of mental health disorders in adolescents, and the methods are rigorous (e.g., random-effects models, risk-of-bias assessment, sensitivity analyses).”

Dr. Bustamante said the literature on physical activity in children has lagged behind that for adults, so this meta-analysis provides a welcome “critical mass” of evidence of benefit in children, in an interview. “Though the benefit is relatively small, it’s exciting to see the results come in positive specifically to depression.” In his view, the effect of exercise is likely to be less pronounced in children than in adults, especially older ones, as they have fewer inflammatory and other systemic health problems that might improve with exercise. “And we tend to see bigger effects in children with a diagnosis like ADHD or clinical depression.”

But the bottom line is clear: “The evidence that physical activity is effective medicine for mental health is robust; now we need to find ways to get people to take it.”

This work was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and the Seed Fund for Basic Research of the University of Hong Kong. The authors and editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Intervening with physical activity appears to mitigate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, a systematic review and meta-analysis of almost 2,500 participants found. Greater reductions were observed for children older than 13 years and those having a diagnosis of mental illness and/or depression versus other conditions, according to Hong Kong researchers reporting in JAMA Pediatrics.

“There is an urgent need to explore novel treatment approaches that can be safely, feasibly, and widely implemented in the daily routine of depressed children and adolescents,” said study coauthor Parco M. Siu, PhD, exercise physiologist and associate professor in the school of public health at the University of Hong Kong, in an interview. “Given the observed association with significant reductions in symptoms, clinical practice guidelines should consider the role of physical activity for improving the mental health of young populations.”

Dr. Siu further noted that while current guidelines suggest psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy for children with this common mood disorder, adherence to these can be problematic, and surveys show that nearly 80% do not receive appropriate disorder-specific medical care.

The analysis

Dr. Siu’s team drew on 21 international studies, including 17 randomized controlled trials, published from 1987 to 2021 and comprising 2,444 young participants, mean age 14, 53% girls. Eligible studies compared the effect of exercise on depression versus a control condition.

In 12 studies, participants had a somatic or psychiatric disorder such as obesity, diabetes, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The mean duration of the prescribed physical activity program was 22 weeks (6-144 weeks), while the frequency of weekly sessions ranged from 2 to 5 days, with 3 days per week most common and mean duration of 50 minutes (30-120 minutes). Regimens ranged from aerobic exercise on fitness equipment such as treadmills, stationary bikes, and ellipticals, to running, swimming, dancing, sports, and exercise games.

In meta-analysis of postintervention differences, physical activity was associated with a significant reduction in the pooled estimate of depressive symptoms compared with the control condition (Hedges g statistic [effect size] = −0.29; 95% confidence interval, −0.47 to −0.10; P = .004). This was driven by moderate to large effect sizes in adolescents (g = −0.44) and children with diagnosed depression (g = −0.75).The differences, however, were not detectable after a mean follow-up of 21 weeks, possibly owing to the limited number of studies with follow-up outcomes, the authors conceded.

Despite the strong association, the mechanisms underlying the antidepressant properties of physical activity remain uncertain. “Potential pathways include the activation of the endocannabinoid system to stimulate the release of endorphins, an increase in the bioavailability of brain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline, which are reduced in depression, as well as long-term changes in brain plasticity,” Dr. Siu said.

In addition, psychosocial and behavioral hypotheses suggest that physical activity can lead to improvements in self-perception, social interactions, and self-confidence. However, he added, depressive phenomenology is multifaceted and individual, so isolating the effects that physical activity have on specific symptoms may not be possible.

Physical activity appears to enhance the treatment of cognitive and affective symptoms in depression, Dr. Siu continued, and a combination of physical activity and pharmacotherapy may also reduce relapse risk, improve adherence to antidepressants, and promote better management of adverse effects, compared with pharmacotherapy alone. “More research is warranted to explain if and how these mechanisms moderate the effect of physical activity, and whether these changes are also present in younger populations,” he said.

Still unanswered is the question of how vigorous activity has to be in order to have an effect, Dr. Siu said. “Future studies should investigate the influence of parameters such as frequency, duration, and supervision of exercise sessions to determine the optimal dose and mode of delivery of the intervention for depressive symptom management.”

But would group activity likely have broader benefits than solitary exercise? “It is still unclear whether there’s a difference between the effect of solitary activities and team sports,” Dr. Siu said.

In an accompanying editorial on the meta-analysis, Eduardo E. Bustamante, PhD, an exercise psychologist in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues called the meta-analysis “part of a potential watershed moment” in the field of exercise as therapy for psychological disorders. “The work is timely, aligning with the rise of mental health disorders in adolescents, and the methods are rigorous (e.g., random-effects models, risk-of-bias assessment, sensitivity analyses).”

Dr. Bustamante said the literature on physical activity in children has lagged behind that for adults, so this meta-analysis provides a welcome “critical mass” of evidence of benefit in children, in an interview. “Though the benefit is relatively small, it’s exciting to see the results come in positive specifically to depression.” In his view, the effect of exercise is likely to be less pronounced in children than in adults, especially older ones, as they have fewer inflammatory and other systemic health problems that might improve with exercise. “And we tend to see bigger effects in children with a diagnosis like ADHD or clinical depression.”

But the bottom line is clear: “The evidence that physical activity is effective medicine for mental health is robust; now we need to find ways to get people to take it.”

This work was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and the Seed Fund for Basic Research of the University of Hong Kong. The authors and editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Intervening with physical activity appears to mitigate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, a systematic review and meta-analysis of almost 2,500 participants found. Greater reductions were observed for children older than 13 years and those having a diagnosis of mental illness and/or depression versus other conditions, according to Hong Kong researchers reporting in JAMA Pediatrics.

“There is an urgent need to explore novel treatment approaches that can be safely, feasibly, and widely implemented in the daily routine of depressed children and adolescents,” said study coauthor Parco M. Siu, PhD, exercise physiologist and associate professor in the school of public health at the University of Hong Kong, in an interview. “Given the observed association with significant reductions in symptoms, clinical practice guidelines should consider the role of physical activity for improving the mental health of young populations.”

Dr. Siu further noted that while current guidelines suggest psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy for children with this common mood disorder, adherence to these can be problematic, and surveys show that nearly 80% do not receive appropriate disorder-specific medical care.

The analysis

Dr. Siu’s team drew on 21 international studies, including 17 randomized controlled trials, published from 1987 to 2021 and comprising 2,444 young participants, mean age 14, 53% girls. Eligible studies compared the effect of exercise on depression versus a control condition.

In 12 studies, participants had a somatic or psychiatric disorder such as obesity, diabetes, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The mean duration of the prescribed physical activity program was 22 weeks (6-144 weeks), while the frequency of weekly sessions ranged from 2 to 5 days, with 3 days per week most common and mean duration of 50 minutes (30-120 minutes). Regimens ranged from aerobic exercise on fitness equipment such as treadmills, stationary bikes, and ellipticals, to running, swimming, dancing, sports, and exercise games.

In meta-analysis of postintervention differences, physical activity was associated with a significant reduction in the pooled estimate of depressive symptoms compared with the control condition (Hedges g statistic [effect size] = −0.29; 95% confidence interval, −0.47 to −0.10; P = .004). This was driven by moderate to large effect sizes in adolescents (g = −0.44) and children with diagnosed depression (g = −0.75).The differences, however, were not detectable after a mean follow-up of 21 weeks, possibly owing to the limited number of studies with follow-up outcomes, the authors conceded.

Despite the strong association, the mechanisms underlying the antidepressant properties of physical activity remain uncertain. “Potential pathways include the activation of the endocannabinoid system to stimulate the release of endorphins, an increase in the bioavailability of brain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline, which are reduced in depression, as well as long-term changes in brain plasticity,” Dr. Siu said.

In addition, psychosocial and behavioral hypotheses suggest that physical activity can lead to improvements in self-perception, social interactions, and self-confidence. However, he added, depressive phenomenology is multifaceted and individual, so isolating the effects that physical activity have on specific symptoms may not be possible.

Physical activity appears to enhance the treatment of cognitive and affective symptoms in depression, Dr. Siu continued, and a combination of physical activity and pharmacotherapy may also reduce relapse risk, improve adherence to antidepressants, and promote better management of adverse effects, compared with pharmacotherapy alone. “More research is warranted to explain if and how these mechanisms moderate the effect of physical activity, and whether these changes are also present in younger populations,” he said.

Still unanswered is the question of how vigorous activity has to be in order to have an effect, Dr. Siu said. “Future studies should investigate the influence of parameters such as frequency, duration, and supervision of exercise sessions to determine the optimal dose and mode of delivery of the intervention for depressive symptom management.”

But would group activity likely have broader benefits than solitary exercise? “It is still unclear whether there’s a difference between the effect of solitary activities and team sports,” Dr. Siu said.

In an accompanying editorial on the meta-analysis, Eduardo E. Bustamante, PhD, an exercise psychologist in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues called the meta-analysis “part of a potential watershed moment” in the field of exercise as therapy for psychological disorders. “The work is timely, aligning with the rise of mental health disorders in adolescents, and the methods are rigorous (e.g., random-effects models, risk-of-bias assessment, sensitivity analyses).”

Dr. Bustamante said the literature on physical activity in children has lagged behind that for adults, so this meta-analysis provides a welcome “critical mass” of evidence of benefit in children, in an interview. “Though the benefit is relatively small, it’s exciting to see the results come in positive specifically to depression.” In his view, the effect of exercise is likely to be less pronounced in children than in adults, especially older ones, as they have fewer inflammatory and other systemic health problems that might improve with exercise. “And we tend to see bigger effects in children with a diagnosis like ADHD or clinical depression.”

But the bottom line is clear: “The evidence that physical activity is effective medicine for mental health is robust; now we need to find ways to get people to take it.”

This work was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and the Seed Fund for Basic Research of the University of Hong Kong. The authors and editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

More than a quarter of cardiologists in an international survey reported experiencing mental health conditions ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.  

Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.

The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.

For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.

The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.

That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Bringing back the conversation

The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.

“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”

Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”

The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.

“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
 

A global perspective

Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.

Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.

“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
 

Junior vs. senior physicians

The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.

Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).

Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”

In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.

He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.

With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”

Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
 

‘Sobering report’

An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.

Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.

It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”

Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
 

Years in practice

Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.

Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).

Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.

Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.

In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).

Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.

But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”

Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.

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

More than a quarter of cardiologists in an international survey reported experiencing mental health conditions ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.  

Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.

The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.

For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.

The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.

That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Bringing back the conversation

The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.

“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”

Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”

The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.

“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
 

A global perspective

Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.

Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.

“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
 

Junior vs. senior physicians

The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.

Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).

Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”

In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.

He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.

With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”

Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
 

‘Sobering report’

An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.

Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.

It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”

Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
 

Years in practice

Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.

Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).

Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.

Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.

In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).

Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.

But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”

Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.

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

More than a quarter of cardiologists in an international survey reported experiencing mental health conditions ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.  

Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.

The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.

For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.

The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.

That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Bringing back the conversation

The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.

“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”

Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”

The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.

“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
 

A global perspective

Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.

Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.

“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
 

Junior vs. senior physicians

The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.

Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).

Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”

In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.

He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.

With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”

Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
 

‘Sobering report’

An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.

Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.

It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”

Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
 

Years in practice

Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.

Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).

Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.

Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.

In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).

Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.

But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”

Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”