Mental Health

The 2020 explosion that rocked Beirut, killing more than 200, injuring more than 7,000 and causing millions of dollars in damage had a significant impact on the mental health of Lebanese expatriates, leaving many grappling with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, results of a new survey show.

The findings highlight the importance of considering the well-being of expatriates dealing with adverse events in their home countries, the investigators say.

Dr. Gaëlle Rached

“Everyone, including doctors, should be more sensitive to expatriates around them; we should look out for them especially when their home country is going through a traumatic event,” study investigator Gaëlle Rached, MD, MSc, research postdoctoral fellow, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

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

A historic explosion

It is estimated that approximately 14 million Lebanese citizens live outside their home country, which is more than double the population of Lebanon. However, the trauma-related mental health of these and other expatriate communities is understudied, said Dr. Rached.

“If you look at the literature, next to no one has examined expatriates’ mental health, and more so in the context of trauma.”

Dr. Rached has personal experience with the event. She was in Beirut on Aug. 4, 2020, when the Lebanese capital was rocked by an explosion attributed to ammonium nitrate stored at the city’s port. It was one of the biggest nonnuclear explosions in history and left hundreds homeless, killed, or injured. Dr. Rached watched as her father was injured and her house destroyed.

She heard anecdotes of Lebanese expatriates, experiencing trauma as a result of the blast. Many were unable to contact friends and loved ones in the wake of the tragedy.

“That prompted us to look at expatriate mental health following this traumatic incident,” she said.

She and her colleagues used various social media platforms to advertise the survey. They also reached out to the International Lebanese Medical Association, which has “a strong base” in the United States, said Dr. Rached.

She was “shocked” at how many expatriates responded. “People really wanted to speak up and express themselves” – whether because of survivor’s guilt or for some other reason, she said.

The survey included 670 adults with Lebanese nationality or who were first generation Lebanese living abroad. The study population had a median age 31 years and 62.2% female, most living in North America or Europe. Over one-third of respondents (270) had been living abroad from 1-5 years but many had been away for more than 20 years.

Study participants completed the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL), which screens for anxiety and depression. On this checklist, a score of 1.75 is a typical cutoff value for symptomatic cases.

The investigators found 41.2% of participants scored higher than this threshold. Being younger, female and visiting Lebanon at the time of the blast, were factors associated with higher HSCL scores.
 

No tincture of time

Interestingly, the amount of time since emigrating from Lebanon was unrelated to the score. “Our results show that, no matter how long you’ve been away, you’re prone to the same negative outcome,” said Dr. Rached.

Of the total study population, 268 personally experienced the explosion and/or had close friends or family physically affected by it. These expatriates completed the Post-traumatic Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).

Here, the analysis showed that many of these respondents (57.5%) scored above 33, which is higher than the threshold for probable PTSD. Being female was linked to higher PCL-5 scores.

These findings suggest the mental health of expatriates may be negatively affected by traumatic incidents in their home countries, even if they didn’t witness the event firsthand and have been away from their home country for a long time.

The results may be especially timely as many countries are taking in a flood of refugees fleeing war in Ukraine. However, Dr. Rached said, the findings from her research may not apply to Ukrainians.

“I don’t think the results can be extrapolated, given that the nature of the trauma is a little bit different,” she said, adding that the Beirut blast was “monumental” but it was over quickly. In contrast, there’s no end in sight for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Dr. Rached noted the study data are preliminary and limited because there’s no way to determine whether respondents had mental health issues before the blast.
 

Global psychiatrist shortage

Commenting on the study, Howard Liu, MD, chair of the University of Nebraska Medical Center department of psychiatry in Omaha, and incoming chair of the APA’s Council on Communications, said he found the presentation “fascinating on several levels.”

It’s increasingly important for psychiatrists to be “trauma informed,” Dr. Liu told a press briefing highlighting the study. “It’s not just about looking at the biological correlates of illness,” meaning looking at genetic markers etc, “but also looking at the environment in which people live, work, and/or are in therapy or in treatment.”

In a later interview, Dr. Liu said he was impressed by the fact that Dr. Rached, who has “a very deep personal connection to this community,” is using her own personal trauma to help identify others are at risk who may need future care.

Dr. Liu, whose own family sponsors Afghan refugees, said the research underlines the need to ensure training for psychiatrists everywhere to help manage the expatriate population. As it stands, there’s “a huge shortage of psychiatrists around the world,” particularly in countries that have been affected by trauma, said Dr. Liu.

The researchers and Dr. Liu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The 2020 explosion that rocked Beirut, killing more than 200, injuring more than 7,000 and causing millions of dollars in damage had a significant impact on the mental health of Lebanese expatriates, leaving many grappling with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, results of a new survey show.

The findings highlight the importance of considering the well-being of expatriates dealing with adverse events in their home countries, the investigators say.

Dr. Gaëlle Rached

“Everyone, including doctors, should be more sensitive to expatriates around them; we should look out for them especially when their home country is going through a traumatic event,” study investigator Gaëlle Rached, MD, MSc, research postdoctoral fellow, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

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

A historic explosion

It is estimated that approximately 14 million Lebanese citizens live outside their home country, which is more than double the population of Lebanon. However, the trauma-related mental health of these and other expatriate communities is understudied, said Dr. Rached.

“If you look at the literature, next to no one has examined expatriates’ mental health, and more so in the context of trauma.”

Dr. Rached has personal experience with the event. She was in Beirut on Aug. 4, 2020, when the Lebanese capital was rocked by an explosion attributed to ammonium nitrate stored at the city’s port. It was one of the biggest nonnuclear explosions in history and left hundreds homeless, killed, or injured. Dr. Rached watched as her father was injured and her house destroyed.

She heard anecdotes of Lebanese expatriates, experiencing trauma as a result of the blast. Many were unable to contact friends and loved ones in the wake of the tragedy.

“That prompted us to look at expatriate mental health following this traumatic incident,” she said.

She and her colleagues used various social media platforms to advertise the survey. They also reached out to the International Lebanese Medical Association, which has “a strong base” in the United States, said Dr. Rached.

She was “shocked” at how many expatriates responded. “People really wanted to speak up and express themselves” – whether because of survivor’s guilt or for some other reason, she said.

The survey included 670 adults with Lebanese nationality or who were first generation Lebanese living abroad. The study population had a median age 31 years and 62.2% female, most living in North America or Europe. Over one-third of respondents (270) had been living abroad from 1-5 years but many had been away for more than 20 years.

Study participants completed the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL), which screens for anxiety and depression. On this checklist, a score of 1.75 is a typical cutoff value for symptomatic cases.

The investigators found 41.2% of participants scored higher than this threshold. Being younger, female and visiting Lebanon at the time of the blast, were factors associated with higher HSCL scores.
 

No tincture of time

Interestingly, the amount of time since emigrating from Lebanon was unrelated to the score. “Our results show that, no matter how long you’ve been away, you’re prone to the same negative outcome,” said Dr. Rached.

Of the total study population, 268 personally experienced the explosion and/or had close friends or family physically affected by it. These expatriates completed the Post-traumatic Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).

Here, the analysis showed that many of these respondents (57.5%) scored above 33, which is higher than the threshold for probable PTSD. Being female was linked to higher PCL-5 scores.

These findings suggest the mental health of expatriates may be negatively affected by traumatic incidents in their home countries, even if they didn’t witness the event firsthand and have been away from their home country for a long time.

The results may be especially timely as many countries are taking in a flood of refugees fleeing war in Ukraine. However, Dr. Rached said, the findings from her research may not apply to Ukrainians.

“I don’t think the results can be extrapolated, given that the nature of the trauma is a little bit different,” she said, adding that the Beirut blast was “monumental” but it was over quickly. In contrast, there’s no end in sight for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Dr. Rached noted the study data are preliminary and limited because there’s no way to determine whether respondents had mental health issues before the blast.
 

Global psychiatrist shortage

Commenting on the study, Howard Liu, MD, chair of the University of Nebraska Medical Center department of psychiatry in Omaha, and incoming chair of the APA’s Council on Communications, said he found the presentation “fascinating on several levels.”

It’s increasingly important for psychiatrists to be “trauma informed,” Dr. Liu told a press briefing highlighting the study. “It’s not just about looking at the biological correlates of illness,” meaning looking at genetic markers etc, “but also looking at the environment in which people live, work, and/or are in therapy or in treatment.”

In a later interview, Dr. Liu said he was impressed by the fact that Dr. Rached, who has “a very deep personal connection to this community,” is using her own personal trauma to help identify others are at risk who may need future care.

Dr. Liu, whose own family sponsors Afghan refugees, said the research underlines the need to ensure training for psychiatrists everywhere to help manage the expatriate population. As it stands, there’s “a huge shortage of psychiatrists around the world,” particularly in countries that have been affected by trauma, said Dr. Liu.

The researchers and Dr. Liu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The 2020 explosion that rocked Beirut, killing more than 200, injuring more than 7,000 and causing millions of dollars in damage had a significant impact on the mental health of Lebanese expatriates, leaving many grappling with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, results of a new survey show.

The findings highlight the importance of considering the well-being of expatriates dealing with adverse events in their home countries, the investigators say.

Dr. Gaëlle Rached

“Everyone, including doctors, should be more sensitive to expatriates around them; we should look out for them especially when their home country is going through a traumatic event,” study investigator Gaëlle Rached, MD, MSc, research postdoctoral fellow, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

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

A historic explosion

It is estimated that approximately 14 million Lebanese citizens live outside their home country, which is more than double the population of Lebanon. However, the trauma-related mental health of these and other expatriate communities is understudied, said Dr. Rached.

“If you look at the literature, next to no one has examined expatriates’ mental health, and more so in the context of trauma.”

Dr. Rached has personal experience with the event. She was in Beirut on Aug. 4, 2020, when the Lebanese capital was rocked by an explosion attributed to ammonium nitrate stored at the city’s port. It was one of the biggest nonnuclear explosions in history and left hundreds homeless, killed, or injured. Dr. Rached watched as her father was injured and her house destroyed.

She heard anecdotes of Lebanese expatriates, experiencing trauma as a result of the blast. Many were unable to contact friends and loved ones in the wake of the tragedy.

“That prompted us to look at expatriate mental health following this traumatic incident,” she said.

She and her colleagues used various social media platforms to advertise the survey. They also reached out to the International Lebanese Medical Association, which has “a strong base” in the United States, said Dr. Rached.

She was “shocked” at how many expatriates responded. “People really wanted to speak up and express themselves” – whether because of survivor’s guilt or for some other reason, she said.

The survey included 670 adults with Lebanese nationality or who were first generation Lebanese living abroad. The study population had a median age 31 years and 62.2% female, most living in North America or Europe. Over one-third of respondents (270) had been living abroad from 1-5 years but many had been away for more than 20 years.

Study participants completed the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL), which screens for anxiety and depression. On this checklist, a score of 1.75 is a typical cutoff value for symptomatic cases.

The investigators found 41.2% of participants scored higher than this threshold. Being younger, female and visiting Lebanon at the time of the blast, were factors associated with higher HSCL scores.
 

No tincture of time

Interestingly, the amount of time since emigrating from Lebanon was unrelated to the score. “Our results show that, no matter how long you’ve been away, you’re prone to the same negative outcome,” said Dr. Rached.

Of the total study population, 268 personally experienced the explosion and/or had close friends or family physically affected by it. These expatriates completed the Post-traumatic Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).

Here, the analysis showed that many of these respondents (57.5%) scored above 33, which is higher than the threshold for probable PTSD. Being female was linked to higher PCL-5 scores.

These findings suggest the mental health of expatriates may be negatively affected by traumatic incidents in their home countries, even if they didn’t witness the event firsthand and have been away from their home country for a long time.

The results may be especially timely as many countries are taking in a flood of refugees fleeing war in Ukraine. However, Dr. Rached said, the findings from her research may not apply to Ukrainians.

“I don’t think the results can be extrapolated, given that the nature of the trauma is a little bit different,” she said, adding that the Beirut blast was “monumental” but it was over quickly. In contrast, there’s no end in sight for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Dr. Rached noted the study data are preliminary and limited because there’s no way to determine whether respondents had mental health issues before the blast.
 

Global psychiatrist shortage

Commenting on the study, Howard Liu, MD, chair of the University of Nebraska Medical Center department of psychiatry in Omaha, and incoming chair of the APA’s Council on Communications, said he found the presentation “fascinating on several levels.”

It’s increasingly important for psychiatrists to be “trauma informed,” Dr. Liu told a press briefing highlighting the study. “It’s not just about looking at the biological correlates of illness,” meaning looking at genetic markers etc, “but also looking at the environment in which people live, work, and/or are in therapy or in treatment.”

In a later interview, Dr. Liu said he was impressed by the fact that Dr. Rached, who has “a very deep personal connection to this community,” is using her own personal trauma to help identify others are at risk who may need future care.

Dr. Liu, whose own family sponsors Afghan refugees, said the research underlines the need to ensure training for psychiatrists everywhere to help manage the expatriate population. As it stands, there’s “a huge shortage of psychiatrists around the world,” particularly in countries that have been affected by trauma, said Dr. Liu.

The researchers and Dr. Liu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Different psychiatric disorders often share the same genetic architecture, which may help explain why many individuals diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder will be diagnosed with another in their lifetime, new research suggests.

Investigators conducted a genetic analysis of 11 major psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

“Our findings confirm that high comorbidity across some disorders in part reflects overlapping pathways of genetic risk,” lead author Andrew Grotzinger, PhD, department of psychology and neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a press release.

The results could lead to the development of treatments that address multiple psychiatric disorders at once and help reshape the way diagnoses are established, the researchers note.

The findings were published online in Nature Genetics.
 

Common genetic patterns

Using the massive UK Biobank and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, the researchers applied novel statistical genetic methods to identify common patterns across 11 major psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, problematic alcohol use, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and autism. 

The average total sample size per disorder was 156,771 participants, with a range of 9,725 to 802,939 participants.

In all, the investigators identified 152 genetic variants shared across multiple disorders, including those already known to influence certain types of brain cells.

For example, they found that 70% of the genetic signal associated with schizophrenia was also associated with bipolar disorder. 

Results also showed that anorexia nervosa and OCD have a strong, shared genetic architecture and that individuals with a genetic predisposition to low body mass index also tend to have a genetic predisposition to these two disorders.

Not surprisingly, the researchers note, there was a large genetic overlap between anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

They also observed that psychiatric disorders that tend to cluster together also tend to share genes that influence how and when individuals are physically active during the day.

For example, patients with internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression tend to have a genetic architecture associated with low movement throughout the day. On the other hand, those with OCD and anorexia tend to have genes associated with higher movement throughout the day. 

“When you think about it, it makes sense,” said Dr. Grotzinger. Depressed individuals often experience fatigue or low energy while those with compulsive disorders may have a tough time sitting still, he noted.
 

One treatment for multiple disorders?

“Collectively, these results offer key insights into the shared and disorder-specific mechanisms of genetic risk for psychiatric disease,” the investigators write.

Their research is also a first step toward developing therapies that can address multiple disorders with one treatment, they add.

“People are more likely today to be prescribed multiple medications intended to treat multiple diagnoses, and in some instances those medicines can have side effects,” Dr. Grotzinger said.

“By identifying what is shared across these issues, we can hopefully come up with ways to target them in a different way that doesn’t require four separate pills or four separate psychotherapy interventions,” he added.

Dr. Grotzinger noted that, for now, the knowledge that genetics are underlying their disorders may provide comfort to some patients.

“It’s important for people to know that they didn’t just get a terrible roll of the dice in life – that they are not facing multiple different issues but rather one set of risk factors bleeding into them all,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Grotzinger reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Different psychiatric disorders often share the same genetic architecture, which may help explain why many individuals diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder will be diagnosed with another in their lifetime, new research suggests.

Investigators conducted a genetic analysis of 11 major psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

“Our findings confirm that high comorbidity across some disorders in part reflects overlapping pathways of genetic risk,” lead author Andrew Grotzinger, PhD, department of psychology and neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a press release.

The results could lead to the development of treatments that address multiple psychiatric disorders at once and help reshape the way diagnoses are established, the researchers note.

The findings were published online in Nature Genetics.
 

Common genetic patterns

Using the massive UK Biobank and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, the researchers applied novel statistical genetic methods to identify common patterns across 11 major psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, problematic alcohol use, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and autism. 

The average total sample size per disorder was 156,771 participants, with a range of 9,725 to 802,939 participants.

In all, the investigators identified 152 genetic variants shared across multiple disorders, including those already known to influence certain types of brain cells.

For example, they found that 70% of the genetic signal associated with schizophrenia was also associated with bipolar disorder. 

Results also showed that anorexia nervosa and OCD have a strong, shared genetic architecture and that individuals with a genetic predisposition to low body mass index also tend to have a genetic predisposition to these two disorders.

Not surprisingly, the researchers note, there was a large genetic overlap between anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

They also observed that psychiatric disorders that tend to cluster together also tend to share genes that influence how and when individuals are physically active during the day.

For example, patients with internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression tend to have a genetic architecture associated with low movement throughout the day. On the other hand, those with OCD and anorexia tend to have genes associated with higher movement throughout the day. 

“When you think about it, it makes sense,” said Dr. Grotzinger. Depressed individuals often experience fatigue or low energy while those with compulsive disorders may have a tough time sitting still, he noted.
 

One treatment for multiple disorders?

“Collectively, these results offer key insights into the shared and disorder-specific mechanisms of genetic risk for psychiatric disease,” the investigators write.

Their research is also a first step toward developing therapies that can address multiple disorders with one treatment, they add.

“People are more likely today to be prescribed multiple medications intended to treat multiple diagnoses, and in some instances those medicines can have side effects,” Dr. Grotzinger said.

“By identifying what is shared across these issues, we can hopefully come up with ways to target them in a different way that doesn’t require four separate pills or four separate psychotherapy interventions,” he added.

Dr. Grotzinger noted that, for now, the knowledge that genetics are underlying their disorders may provide comfort to some patients.

“It’s important for people to know that they didn’t just get a terrible roll of the dice in life – that they are not facing multiple different issues but rather one set of risk factors bleeding into them all,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Grotzinger reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Different psychiatric disorders often share the same genetic architecture, which may help explain why many individuals diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder will be diagnosed with another in their lifetime, new research suggests.

Investigators conducted a genetic analysis of 11 major psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

“Our findings confirm that high comorbidity across some disorders in part reflects overlapping pathways of genetic risk,” lead author Andrew Grotzinger, PhD, department of psychology and neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a press release.

The results could lead to the development of treatments that address multiple psychiatric disorders at once and help reshape the way diagnoses are established, the researchers note.

The findings were published online in Nature Genetics.
 

Common genetic patterns

Using the massive UK Biobank and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, the researchers applied novel statistical genetic methods to identify common patterns across 11 major psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, problematic alcohol use, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and autism. 

The average total sample size per disorder was 156,771 participants, with a range of 9,725 to 802,939 participants.

In all, the investigators identified 152 genetic variants shared across multiple disorders, including those already known to influence certain types of brain cells.

For example, they found that 70% of the genetic signal associated with schizophrenia was also associated with bipolar disorder. 

Results also showed that anorexia nervosa and OCD have a strong, shared genetic architecture and that individuals with a genetic predisposition to low body mass index also tend to have a genetic predisposition to these two disorders.

Not surprisingly, the researchers note, there was a large genetic overlap between anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

They also observed that psychiatric disorders that tend to cluster together also tend to share genes that influence how and when individuals are physically active during the day.

For example, patients with internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression tend to have a genetic architecture associated with low movement throughout the day. On the other hand, those with OCD and anorexia tend to have genes associated with higher movement throughout the day. 

“When you think about it, it makes sense,” said Dr. Grotzinger. Depressed individuals often experience fatigue or low energy while those with compulsive disorders may have a tough time sitting still, he noted.
 

One treatment for multiple disorders?

“Collectively, these results offer key insights into the shared and disorder-specific mechanisms of genetic risk for psychiatric disease,” the investigators write.

Their research is also a first step toward developing therapies that can address multiple disorders with one treatment, they add.

“People are more likely today to be prescribed multiple medications intended to treat multiple diagnoses, and in some instances those medicines can have side effects,” Dr. Grotzinger said.

“By identifying what is shared across these issues, we can hopefully come up with ways to target them in a different way that doesn’t require four separate pills or four separate psychotherapy interventions,” he added.

Dr. Grotzinger noted that, for now, the knowledge that genetics are underlying their disorders may provide comfort to some patients.

“It’s important for people to know that they didn’t just get a terrible roll of the dice in life – that they are not facing multiple different issues but rather one set of risk factors bleeding into them all,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Grotzinger reported no relevant disclosures.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The patient, a 60-year-old woman who’d just tried to kill herself by overdosing on gabapentin, felt the need to make a confession. As she told a resident psychiatrist late one night at a Philadelphia crisis response center, she’d just murdered two people and buried them in her backyard. More details kept coming, including who was dead and where their bodies were.

It didn’t take long for the attending physician’s phone to ring as the resident sought guidance. This wasn’t a typical “duty to warn” case since there was no one to warn of a threat of violence. But then what kind of case was it? As Meghan Musselman, MD, and colleagues noted in a report presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, the law and medical ethics didn’t present a clear-cut solution to whether the patient’s claim should be reported to the authorities.

“This was much more of a gray zone case than we typically see,” said Dr. Musselman, of the department of psychiatry at Temple University in Philadelphia, in an interview. “If someone is threatening to harm someone, most states have statutes about what to do in that situation. The same doesn’t really exist for when the crime has already happened.”

Even so, might the existing “duty to warn/protect” laws be helpful as a guide to what to do? Maybe, but it’s complicated. The laws, which address the waiving of therapist-patient confidentiality when violence is threatened, are widely variable. Some don’t specifically cover psychiatrists, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some simply allow – but don’t require – certain mental-health professionals to take action regarding threats of violence without getting in trouble themselves.

There are no duty to warn/protect laws in Nevada, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Maine. Pennsylvania requires “mental-health professionals” to act when there’s a “clear and immediate danger to others or to society.”

In an interview, Columbia University, New York, psychiatrist and medical law/ethics specialist Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, said that “with the exception of situations like child abuse or elder abuse, for which psychiatrists are mandatory reporters, psychiatrists generally have the same responsibilities for reporting crimes as other citizens.”

He added that there is a crime in English common law known as “misprision” that refers to failing to report a felony. “A few states still have misprision statutes, but courts have tended to interpret them to require an affirmative act to conceal a crime, not just failure to report,” he said. “Unless the patient’s confession indicates a continuing threat to other people – e.g., a serial rapist or murderer – there is probably no obligation to report a previous crime.”

In this case, Dr. Musselman said, the physicians thought they might be able to waive confidentiality because it was possible that the alleged murder victims were still alive and in need of help.

However, the patient ultimately took the decision out of the hands of the psychiatrists and agreed to confess to the police. There’s a happy ending: The patient later recanted the story, Dr. Musselman said, and there was no follow-up by the authorities.

What should psychiatrists do in a similar situation? Besides the law, Dr. Musselman said, it’s important to consider medical ethics, confidentiality, and the greater good. “Doctors may have to ask themselves: Would I rather be sued because I’m breaking confidentiality or potentially play a part in someone’s suffering?”

She recommended reaching out to attorneys for legal guidance. “There’s a saying in forensic psychiatry by [Harvard University psychiatrist] Thomas Gutheil: Never worry alone.”

Dr. Applebaum agreed, and added: “Psychiatrists should consider the credibility of the patient’s confession: Could it represent a delusion? Is it being proffered as a way of manipulating the therapist? What is the extent to which, if valid, it indicates an ongoing threat to others? Is the patient is willing to contact the police and admit to the crime or authorize the psychiatrist to do so? Only in the case of a credible confession, an ongoing threat, and a patient unwilling to contact the police themselves should the psychiatrist seriously consider breaching confidentiality to report.”

No study funding or disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – The patient, a 60-year-old woman who’d just tried to kill herself by overdosing on gabapentin, felt the need to make a confession. As she told a resident psychiatrist late one night at a Philadelphia crisis response center, she’d just murdered two people and buried them in her backyard. More details kept coming, including who was dead and where their bodies were.

It didn’t take long for the attending physician’s phone to ring as the resident sought guidance. This wasn’t a typical “duty to warn” case since there was no one to warn of a threat of violence. But then what kind of case was it? As Meghan Musselman, MD, and colleagues noted in a report presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, the law and medical ethics didn’t present a clear-cut solution to whether the patient’s claim should be reported to the authorities.

“This was much more of a gray zone case than we typically see,” said Dr. Musselman, of the department of psychiatry at Temple University in Philadelphia, in an interview. “If someone is threatening to harm someone, most states have statutes about what to do in that situation. The same doesn’t really exist for when the crime has already happened.”

Even so, might the existing “duty to warn/protect” laws be helpful as a guide to what to do? Maybe, but it’s complicated. The laws, which address the waiving of therapist-patient confidentiality when violence is threatened, are widely variable. Some don’t specifically cover psychiatrists, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some simply allow – but don’t require – certain mental-health professionals to take action regarding threats of violence without getting in trouble themselves.

There are no duty to warn/protect laws in Nevada, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Maine. Pennsylvania requires “mental-health professionals” to act when there’s a “clear and immediate danger to others or to society.”

In an interview, Columbia University, New York, psychiatrist and medical law/ethics specialist Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, said that “with the exception of situations like child abuse or elder abuse, for which psychiatrists are mandatory reporters, psychiatrists generally have the same responsibilities for reporting crimes as other citizens.”

He added that there is a crime in English common law known as “misprision” that refers to failing to report a felony. “A few states still have misprision statutes, but courts have tended to interpret them to require an affirmative act to conceal a crime, not just failure to report,” he said. “Unless the patient’s confession indicates a continuing threat to other people – e.g., a serial rapist or murderer – there is probably no obligation to report a previous crime.”

In this case, Dr. Musselman said, the physicians thought they might be able to waive confidentiality because it was possible that the alleged murder victims were still alive and in need of help.

However, the patient ultimately took the decision out of the hands of the psychiatrists and agreed to confess to the police. There’s a happy ending: The patient later recanted the story, Dr. Musselman said, and there was no follow-up by the authorities.

What should psychiatrists do in a similar situation? Besides the law, Dr. Musselman said, it’s important to consider medical ethics, confidentiality, and the greater good. “Doctors may have to ask themselves: Would I rather be sued because I’m breaking confidentiality or potentially play a part in someone’s suffering?”

She recommended reaching out to attorneys for legal guidance. “There’s a saying in forensic psychiatry by [Harvard University psychiatrist] Thomas Gutheil: Never worry alone.”

Dr. Applebaum agreed, and added: “Psychiatrists should consider the credibility of the patient’s confession: Could it represent a delusion? Is it being proffered as a way of manipulating the therapist? What is the extent to which, if valid, it indicates an ongoing threat to others? Is the patient is willing to contact the police and admit to the crime or authorize the psychiatrist to do so? Only in the case of a credible confession, an ongoing threat, and a patient unwilling to contact the police themselves should the psychiatrist seriously consider breaching confidentiality to report.”

No study funding or disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – The patient, a 60-year-old woman who’d just tried to kill herself by overdosing on gabapentin, felt the need to make a confession. As she told a resident psychiatrist late one night at a Philadelphia crisis response center, she’d just murdered two people and buried them in her backyard. More details kept coming, including who was dead and where their bodies were.

It didn’t take long for the attending physician’s phone to ring as the resident sought guidance. This wasn’t a typical “duty to warn” case since there was no one to warn of a threat of violence. But then what kind of case was it? As Meghan Musselman, MD, and colleagues noted in a report presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, the law and medical ethics didn’t present a clear-cut solution to whether the patient’s claim should be reported to the authorities.

“This was much more of a gray zone case than we typically see,” said Dr. Musselman, of the department of psychiatry at Temple University in Philadelphia, in an interview. “If someone is threatening to harm someone, most states have statutes about what to do in that situation. The same doesn’t really exist for when the crime has already happened.”

Even so, might the existing “duty to warn/protect” laws be helpful as a guide to what to do? Maybe, but it’s complicated. The laws, which address the waiving of therapist-patient confidentiality when violence is threatened, are widely variable. Some don’t specifically cover psychiatrists, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some simply allow – but don’t require – certain mental-health professionals to take action regarding threats of violence without getting in trouble themselves.

There are no duty to warn/protect laws in Nevada, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Maine. Pennsylvania requires “mental-health professionals” to act when there’s a “clear and immediate danger to others or to society.”

In an interview, Columbia University, New York, psychiatrist and medical law/ethics specialist Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, said that “with the exception of situations like child abuse or elder abuse, for which psychiatrists are mandatory reporters, psychiatrists generally have the same responsibilities for reporting crimes as other citizens.”

He added that there is a crime in English common law known as “misprision” that refers to failing to report a felony. “A few states still have misprision statutes, but courts have tended to interpret them to require an affirmative act to conceal a crime, not just failure to report,” he said. “Unless the patient’s confession indicates a continuing threat to other people – e.g., a serial rapist or murderer – there is probably no obligation to report a previous crime.”

In this case, Dr. Musselman said, the physicians thought they might be able to waive confidentiality because it was possible that the alleged murder victims were still alive and in need of help.

However, the patient ultimately took the decision out of the hands of the psychiatrists and agreed to confess to the police. There’s a happy ending: The patient later recanted the story, Dr. Musselman said, and there was no follow-up by the authorities.

What should psychiatrists do in a similar situation? Besides the law, Dr. Musselman said, it’s important to consider medical ethics, confidentiality, and the greater good. “Doctors may have to ask themselves: Would I rather be sued because I’m breaking confidentiality or potentially play a part in someone’s suffering?”

She recommended reaching out to attorneys for legal guidance. “There’s a saying in forensic psychiatry by [Harvard University psychiatrist] Thomas Gutheil: Never worry alone.”

Dr. Applebaum agreed, and added: “Psychiatrists should consider the credibility of the patient’s confession: Could it represent a delusion? Is it being proffered as a way of manipulating the therapist? What is the extent to which, if valid, it indicates an ongoing threat to others? Is the patient is willing to contact the police and admit to the crime or authorize the psychiatrist to do so? Only in the case of a credible confession, an ongoing threat, and a patient unwilling to contact the police themselves should the psychiatrist seriously consider breaching confidentiality to report.”

No study funding or disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – With 2 years of COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, anxiety among U.S. adults has turned instead toward global events, results from the annual Healthy Minds Poll from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“It’s not surprising that recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, racially motivated mass shootings, or the impacts of climate change, are weighing heavily on Americans’ minds,” APA president Vivian Pender, MD, said in a news release. 

“COVID-19 in a way has taken a back seat, but the pandemic and its mental health effects are very much still with us. It’s important that we are cognizant of that and continue to work to ensure people who need psychiatric care, whether the causes are tied to the pandemic or to other issues, can access it,” Dr. Pender added.

Results from the 2022’s poll were released May 22 during the annual meeting of the APA.
 

Record low COVID anxiety

The poll was conducted by Morning Consult between April 23-24 and included 2,210 adult participants.

Results showed that anxiety about COVID is at its recorded lowest, with 50% of respondents indicating they are anxious about the pandemic. This was down from 65% in 2021 and from 75% in 2020.

Instead, nearly three-quarters (73%) of adults are somewhat or extremely anxious about current events happening around the world, 64% are anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe, and 60% worry about their health in general.

Overall, about one-third (32%) reported being more anxious now than in 2021, 46% reported no change in their anxiety level, and 18% were less anxious.

About one-quarter (26%) have spoken with a mental health care professional in the past few years, which is down from 34% in 2021. In addition, Hispanic (36%) and Black (35%) adults were more likely to have reached out for help than White (25%) adults.

Despite the U.S. Surgeon General’s recent advisory on the mental health crisis among children, the poll results also showed that Americans are less concerned about their children’s mental health than in 2021. A total of 41% of parents expressed concern about this topic, which was down from 53% in 2021.

Still, 40% of parents said their children had received help from a mental health professional since the pandemic hit. Of that group, 36% sought help before the pandemic, whereas half said the pandemic had caused mental health issues for their children.

“While the overall level of concern has dropped, still 4 in 10 parents are worried about how their children are doing, and a third are having issues with access to care,” Saul Levin, MD, CEO and medical director of the APA, said in the release.

“This is unacceptable and as a nation, we need to invest in the kind of systems that will ensure any parent who’s worried about their child has access to lifesaving treatment,” Dr. Levin added.
 

Workplace mental health

In addition, the poll showed employees often have a tough time getting mental health support from employers, or are hesitant to ask for help.

“What’s troubling about the results of this poll is that, even as the pandemic has continued and its mental health effects wear on, fewer employees are reporting that they have access to mental health services,” Dr. Pender said. 

“Workplaces need to ensure that they are paying attention to what their employees need, particularly now, and moving away from mental health benefits isn’t the right move,” she added.

About half (48%) of those polled said they can discuss mental health openly and honestly with their supervisor, down from 56% in 2021 and 62% in 2020.

Only about half (52%) said they feel comfortable using mental health services with their current employer, compared with 64% in 2021 and 67% in 2020.

In addition, fewer workers felt their employer is offering sufficient mental health resources and benefits. In 2022, 53% of workers thought resources and benefits were adequate, which was down from 65% in 2021 and 68% in 2020.

“It’s quite concerning to see that fewer people feel comfortable discussing mental health with a supervisor, at a time when people experiencing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other conditions are on the rise and impact nearly every aspect of work, including productivity, performance, retention, and overall health care costs,” said Darcy Gruttadaro, JD, director of the APA Foundation’s Center for Workplace Mental Health.

“As rates of these conditions rise, we should see more employees knowing about available workplace mental health resources, not less,” Ms. Gruttadaro said.
 

Strong bipartisan support 

Perhaps unexpectedly, the poll shows strong support among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents for three APA-backed approaches to improve timely access to mental health care and treatment.

Specifically, about three-quarters of those polled supported making it easier to see a mental health professional via telehealth, allowing patients to receive mental health care through a primary care provider, and funding mental health care professionals to work in rural or urban communities that are traditionally underserved.

“We’re in a moment when mental health is a big part of the national conversation, and clearly political party doesn’t matter as much on this issue,” Dr. Pender noted. 

“It’s a rare thing in Washington these days to see such a resounding endorsement, but there is strong support for these practical workable solutions that mean more access to mental health care,” she said.

“What you see in this poll is agreement: It’s hard to access mental [health care] but we do have great solutions that could work across party lines,” Dr. Levin added.

“Many policy makers, in the administration and in Congress, are already putting these ideas into action, and they should feel encouraged that the public wants to see Congress act on them,” he said.

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

NEW ORLEANS – With 2 years of COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, anxiety among U.S. adults has turned instead toward global events, results from the annual Healthy Minds Poll from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“It’s not surprising that recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, racially motivated mass shootings, or the impacts of climate change, are weighing heavily on Americans’ minds,” APA president Vivian Pender, MD, said in a news release. 

“COVID-19 in a way has taken a back seat, but the pandemic and its mental health effects are very much still with us. It’s important that we are cognizant of that and continue to work to ensure people who need psychiatric care, whether the causes are tied to the pandemic or to other issues, can access it,” Dr. Pender added.

Results from the 2022’s poll were released May 22 during the annual meeting of the APA.
 

Record low COVID anxiety

The poll was conducted by Morning Consult between April 23-24 and included 2,210 adult participants.

Results showed that anxiety about COVID is at its recorded lowest, with 50% of respondents indicating they are anxious about the pandemic. This was down from 65% in 2021 and from 75% in 2020.

Instead, nearly three-quarters (73%) of adults are somewhat or extremely anxious about current events happening around the world, 64% are anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe, and 60% worry about their health in general.

Overall, about one-third (32%) reported being more anxious now than in 2021, 46% reported no change in their anxiety level, and 18% were less anxious.

About one-quarter (26%) have spoken with a mental health care professional in the past few years, which is down from 34% in 2021. In addition, Hispanic (36%) and Black (35%) adults were more likely to have reached out for help than White (25%) adults.

Despite the U.S. Surgeon General’s recent advisory on the mental health crisis among children, the poll results also showed that Americans are less concerned about their children’s mental health than in 2021. A total of 41% of parents expressed concern about this topic, which was down from 53% in 2021.

Still, 40% of parents said their children had received help from a mental health professional since the pandemic hit. Of that group, 36% sought help before the pandemic, whereas half said the pandemic had caused mental health issues for their children.

“While the overall level of concern has dropped, still 4 in 10 parents are worried about how their children are doing, and a third are having issues with access to care,” Saul Levin, MD, CEO and medical director of the APA, said in the release.

“This is unacceptable and as a nation, we need to invest in the kind of systems that will ensure any parent who’s worried about their child has access to lifesaving treatment,” Dr. Levin added.
 

Workplace mental health

In addition, the poll showed employees often have a tough time getting mental health support from employers, or are hesitant to ask for help.

“What’s troubling about the results of this poll is that, even as the pandemic has continued and its mental health effects wear on, fewer employees are reporting that they have access to mental health services,” Dr. Pender said. 

“Workplaces need to ensure that they are paying attention to what their employees need, particularly now, and moving away from mental health benefits isn’t the right move,” she added.

About half (48%) of those polled said they can discuss mental health openly and honestly with their supervisor, down from 56% in 2021 and 62% in 2020.

Only about half (52%) said they feel comfortable using mental health services with their current employer, compared with 64% in 2021 and 67% in 2020.

In addition, fewer workers felt their employer is offering sufficient mental health resources and benefits. In 2022, 53% of workers thought resources and benefits were adequate, which was down from 65% in 2021 and 68% in 2020.

“It’s quite concerning to see that fewer people feel comfortable discussing mental health with a supervisor, at a time when people experiencing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other conditions are on the rise and impact nearly every aspect of work, including productivity, performance, retention, and overall health care costs,” said Darcy Gruttadaro, JD, director of the APA Foundation’s Center for Workplace Mental Health.

“As rates of these conditions rise, we should see more employees knowing about available workplace mental health resources, not less,” Ms. Gruttadaro said.
 

Strong bipartisan support 

Perhaps unexpectedly, the poll shows strong support among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents for three APA-backed approaches to improve timely access to mental health care and treatment.

Specifically, about three-quarters of those polled supported making it easier to see a mental health professional via telehealth, allowing patients to receive mental health care through a primary care provider, and funding mental health care professionals to work in rural or urban communities that are traditionally underserved.

“We’re in a moment when mental health is a big part of the national conversation, and clearly political party doesn’t matter as much on this issue,” Dr. Pender noted. 

“It’s a rare thing in Washington these days to see such a resounding endorsement, but there is strong support for these practical workable solutions that mean more access to mental health care,” she said.

“What you see in this poll is agreement: It’s hard to access mental [health care] but we do have great solutions that could work across party lines,” Dr. Levin added.

“Many policy makers, in the administration and in Congress, are already putting these ideas into action, and they should feel encouraged that the public wants to see Congress act on them,” he said.

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

NEW ORLEANS – With 2 years of COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, anxiety among U.S. adults has turned instead toward global events, results from the annual Healthy Minds Poll from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“It’s not surprising that recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, racially motivated mass shootings, or the impacts of climate change, are weighing heavily on Americans’ minds,” APA president Vivian Pender, MD, said in a news release. 

“COVID-19 in a way has taken a back seat, but the pandemic and its mental health effects are very much still with us. It’s important that we are cognizant of that and continue to work to ensure people who need psychiatric care, whether the causes are tied to the pandemic or to other issues, can access it,” Dr. Pender added.

Results from the 2022’s poll were released May 22 during the annual meeting of the APA.
 

Record low COVID anxiety

The poll was conducted by Morning Consult between April 23-24 and included 2,210 adult participants.

Results showed that anxiety about COVID is at its recorded lowest, with 50% of respondents indicating they are anxious about the pandemic. This was down from 65% in 2021 and from 75% in 2020.

Instead, nearly three-quarters (73%) of adults are somewhat or extremely anxious about current events happening around the world, 64% are anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe, and 60% worry about their health in general.

Overall, about one-third (32%) reported being more anxious now than in 2021, 46% reported no change in their anxiety level, and 18% were less anxious.

About one-quarter (26%) have spoken with a mental health care professional in the past few years, which is down from 34% in 2021. In addition, Hispanic (36%) and Black (35%) adults were more likely to have reached out for help than White (25%) adults.

Despite the U.S. Surgeon General’s recent advisory on the mental health crisis among children, the poll results also showed that Americans are less concerned about their children’s mental health than in 2021. A total of 41% of parents expressed concern about this topic, which was down from 53% in 2021.

Still, 40% of parents said their children had received help from a mental health professional since the pandemic hit. Of that group, 36% sought help before the pandemic, whereas half said the pandemic had caused mental health issues for their children.

“While the overall level of concern has dropped, still 4 in 10 parents are worried about how their children are doing, and a third are having issues with access to care,” Saul Levin, MD, CEO and medical director of the APA, said in the release.

“This is unacceptable and as a nation, we need to invest in the kind of systems that will ensure any parent who’s worried about their child has access to lifesaving treatment,” Dr. Levin added.
 

Workplace mental health

In addition, the poll showed employees often have a tough time getting mental health support from employers, or are hesitant to ask for help.

“What’s troubling about the results of this poll is that, even as the pandemic has continued and its mental health effects wear on, fewer employees are reporting that they have access to mental health services,” Dr. Pender said. 

“Workplaces need to ensure that they are paying attention to what their employees need, particularly now, and moving away from mental health benefits isn’t the right move,” she added.

About half (48%) of those polled said they can discuss mental health openly and honestly with their supervisor, down from 56% in 2021 and 62% in 2020.

Only about half (52%) said they feel comfortable using mental health services with their current employer, compared with 64% in 2021 and 67% in 2020.

In addition, fewer workers felt their employer is offering sufficient mental health resources and benefits. In 2022, 53% of workers thought resources and benefits were adequate, which was down from 65% in 2021 and 68% in 2020.

“It’s quite concerning to see that fewer people feel comfortable discussing mental health with a supervisor, at a time when people experiencing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other conditions are on the rise and impact nearly every aspect of work, including productivity, performance, retention, and overall health care costs,” said Darcy Gruttadaro, JD, director of the APA Foundation’s Center for Workplace Mental Health.

“As rates of these conditions rise, we should see more employees knowing about available workplace mental health resources, not less,” Ms. Gruttadaro said.
 

Strong bipartisan support 

Perhaps unexpectedly, the poll shows strong support among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents for three APA-backed approaches to improve timely access to mental health care and treatment.

Specifically, about three-quarters of those polled supported making it easier to see a mental health professional via telehealth, allowing patients to receive mental health care through a primary care provider, and funding mental health care professionals to work in rural or urban communities that are traditionally underserved.

“We’re in a moment when mental health is a big part of the national conversation, and clearly political party doesn’t matter as much on this issue,” Dr. Pender noted. 

“It’s a rare thing in Washington these days to see such a resounding endorsement, but there is strong support for these practical workable solutions that mean more access to mental health care,” she said.

“What you see in this poll is agreement: It’s hard to access mental [health care] but we do have great solutions that could work across party lines,” Dr. Levin added.

“Many policy makers, in the administration and in Congress, are already putting these ideas into action, and they should feel encouraged that the public wants to see Congress act on them,” he said.

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

A balance between fear and relaxation is normal. However, mental dispositions and the continuous influence of environmental stimuli can disrupt this balance. A failure in therapy can often conceal unvoiced fears.

This article is based on the lecture “State of the Art: Treating Anxiety Disorders” by Christian Albus, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne (Germany), at the 128th conference of the German Society of Internal Medicine.
 

Hidden fears

Poor compliance often has a simple cause: The patients are scared. They are afraid of bad news, for example through further investigations. Taking medication regularly reminds them, over and over, of their threatening problem. Those affected rarely speak about these delicate issues of their own volition, said Dr. Albus. But latent fears are no trivial issue.

Cardiac prognosis

A third of those affected by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subsequently suffer from long-term anxiety disorders. The fear that they will relive their experiences overshadows their zest for life. As a result, signs of clinical depression can be detected in 50% of patients with ACS. Posttraumatic stress disorders have even been observed in up to 30% of patients. Fear also exacerbates the prognosis. Patients suffering from heart attack and subsequent cardiac failure demonstrate a significant correlation between stress and increased mortality.

Self-diagnosis

The fact that we are living in an age of fear is influenced by technological advances. “Dr. Google” is the first source to be consulted for almost half of adults who need their symptoms explained. Well-informed patients improve patient-doctor communication. But unfortunately, many people are becoming addicted to searching for diagnoses and symptoms online. Primarily harmless symptoms are associated with catastrophic diagnoses. Regrettably, Google’s search algorithm also increases this tendency. If someone starts to look for serious diseases, Google will show you these sorts of potential catastrophes on an ever more frequent basis. Google ultimately orients itself around the interests of its users. The result is a spiral of fear that can cause illness.

Cyberchondria

Compulsive searching on the internet for more and more new dangers to health has now developed into its own medical condition, termed cyberchondria. The therapy is strict internet abstinence. The gross exaggeration of health problems by the media also contributes to this. This is because it’s not just sex that sells, but also fear. The current example is long COVID. In the much-cited Gutenberg study, over half of coronavirus patients subsequently exhibited the typical symptoms: fatigue, concentration disorders, and breathing issues. Most media ignore the crucial detail that the same problems were also registered in 40% of the coronavirus-free control group. Dr. Albus pointed out that it’s no wonder that so much fear is being spread by long COVID.

The first step

Responsible medicine must counteract these developments. The first step is actively to address the fear problem. Patients who seem tense benefit enormously from the simple question: “How are you otherwise?” This question may open doors. Suddenly, patients begin to talk about their anxieties and fears. Of course, this approach to patients is time consuming. Still, this time must be taken, said Dr. Albus. In a survey of oncology patients, the majority reported that none of their physicians are ever interested in their emotional state. This is a sign of inadequate care, since psychosomatic primary care should be a standard nowadays in every specialty.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

A balance between fear and relaxation is normal. However, mental dispositions and the continuous influence of environmental stimuli can disrupt this balance. A failure in therapy can often conceal unvoiced fears.

This article is based on the lecture “State of the Art: Treating Anxiety Disorders” by Christian Albus, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne (Germany), at the 128th conference of the German Society of Internal Medicine.
 

Hidden fears

Poor compliance often has a simple cause: The patients are scared. They are afraid of bad news, for example through further investigations. Taking medication regularly reminds them, over and over, of their threatening problem. Those affected rarely speak about these delicate issues of their own volition, said Dr. Albus. But latent fears are no trivial issue.

Cardiac prognosis

A third of those affected by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subsequently suffer from long-term anxiety disorders. The fear that they will relive their experiences overshadows their zest for life. As a result, signs of clinical depression can be detected in 50% of patients with ACS. Posttraumatic stress disorders have even been observed in up to 30% of patients. Fear also exacerbates the prognosis. Patients suffering from heart attack and subsequent cardiac failure demonstrate a significant correlation between stress and increased mortality.

Self-diagnosis

The fact that we are living in an age of fear is influenced by technological advances. “Dr. Google” is the first source to be consulted for almost half of adults who need their symptoms explained. Well-informed patients improve patient-doctor communication. But unfortunately, many people are becoming addicted to searching for diagnoses and symptoms online. Primarily harmless symptoms are associated with catastrophic diagnoses. Regrettably, Google’s search algorithm also increases this tendency. If someone starts to look for serious diseases, Google will show you these sorts of potential catastrophes on an ever more frequent basis. Google ultimately orients itself around the interests of its users. The result is a spiral of fear that can cause illness.

Cyberchondria

Compulsive searching on the internet for more and more new dangers to health has now developed into its own medical condition, termed cyberchondria. The therapy is strict internet abstinence. The gross exaggeration of health problems by the media also contributes to this. This is because it’s not just sex that sells, but also fear. The current example is long COVID. In the much-cited Gutenberg study, over half of coronavirus patients subsequently exhibited the typical symptoms: fatigue, concentration disorders, and breathing issues. Most media ignore the crucial detail that the same problems were also registered in 40% of the coronavirus-free control group. Dr. Albus pointed out that it’s no wonder that so much fear is being spread by long COVID.

The first step

Responsible medicine must counteract these developments. The first step is actively to address the fear problem. Patients who seem tense benefit enormously from the simple question: “How are you otherwise?” This question may open doors. Suddenly, patients begin to talk about their anxieties and fears. Of course, this approach to patients is time consuming. Still, this time must be taken, said Dr. Albus. In a survey of oncology patients, the majority reported that none of their physicians are ever interested in their emotional state. This is a sign of inadequate care, since psychosomatic primary care should be a standard nowadays in every specialty.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

A balance between fear and relaxation is normal. However, mental dispositions and the continuous influence of environmental stimuli can disrupt this balance. A failure in therapy can often conceal unvoiced fears.

This article is based on the lecture “State of the Art: Treating Anxiety Disorders” by Christian Albus, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne (Germany), at the 128th conference of the German Society of Internal Medicine.
 

Hidden fears

Poor compliance often has a simple cause: The patients are scared. They are afraid of bad news, for example through further investigations. Taking medication regularly reminds them, over and over, of their threatening problem. Those affected rarely speak about these delicate issues of their own volition, said Dr. Albus. But latent fears are no trivial issue.

Cardiac prognosis

A third of those affected by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subsequently suffer from long-term anxiety disorders. The fear that they will relive their experiences overshadows their zest for life. As a result, signs of clinical depression can be detected in 50% of patients with ACS. Posttraumatic stress disorders have even been observed in up to 30% of patients. Fear also exacerbates the prognosis. Patients suffering from heart attack and subsequent cardiac failure demonstrate a significant correlation between stress and increased mortality.

Self-diagnosis

The fact that we are living in an age of fear is influenced by technological advances. “Dr. Google” is the first source to be consulted for almost half of adults who need their symptoms explained. Well-informed patients improve patient-doctor communication. But unfortunately, many people are becoming addicted to searching for diagnoses and symptoms online. Primarily harmless symptoms are associated with catastrophic diagnoses. Regrettably, Google’s search algorithm also increases this tendency. If someone starts to look for serious diseases, Google will show you these sorts of potential catastrophes on an ever more frequent basis. Google ultimately orients itself around the interests of its users. The result is a spiral of fear that can cause illness.

Cyberchondria

Compulsive searching on the internet for more and more new dangers to health has now developed into its own medical condition, termed cyberchondria. The therapy is strict internet abstinence. The gross exaggeration of health problems by the media also contributes to this. This is because it’s not just sex that sells, but also fear. The current example is long COVID. In the much-cited Gutenberg study, over half of coronavirus patients subsequently exhibited the typical symptoms: fatigue, concentration disorders, and breathing issues. Most media ignore the crucial detail that the same problems were also registered in 40% of the coronavirus-free control group. Dr. Albus pointed out that it’s no wonder that so much fear is being spread by long COVID.

The first step

Responsible medicine must counteract these developments. The first step is actively to address the fear problem. Patients who seem tense benefit enormously from the simple question: “How are you otherwise?” This question may open doors. Suddenly, patients begin to talk about their anxieties and fears. Of course, this approach to patients is time consuming. Still, this time must be taken, said Dr. Albus. In a survey of oncology patients, the majority reported that none of their physicians are ever interested in their emotional state. This is a sign of inadequate care, since psychosomatic primary care should be a standard nowadays in every specialty.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

More teenagers in the United States reported cannabis use with vaping in 2019, compared with 2017, while cannabis use without vaping declined, based on annual survey data from more than 50,000 teens.

“With vaping prevalence rising so quickly among teens, getting a clearer picture of how cannabis use is shifting helps inform prevention and cessation efforts,” corresponding author Noah T. Kreski, MPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“In just 2 years, the most common cannabis use pattern changed from ‘occasional use without vaping’ to ‘frequent use with vaping,’ said Mx. Kreski, who uses the honorific Mx. and the pronouns they/them. “Knowing that, as well as the high overlap of cannabis vaping with nicotine use and binge drinking, adds to the urgency of reducing adolescent vaping.”

To quantify the trends in cannabis vaping, the researchers reviewed data from Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of high school students across the United States. The study population included 51,052 individuals; approximately 49% were male and 49% were non-Hispanic White. The researchers examined frequency of cannabis use, trends across demographic groups, and concurrent use of cannabis and other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The findings were published in the journal Addiction.

Frequent cannabis use was defined as six or more times in the past 30 days; occasional use was defined as one to five times in the past 30 days.

Frequent cannabis use with vaping increased from 2.1% in 2017 to 5.4% in 2019. Occasional cannabis use with vaping also increased, though less dramatically, from less than 2% in 2017 to approximately 3.5% in 2019.

By contrast, both frequent and occasional cannabis use without vaping declined from 2017 to 2019 (from 3.8% to 2.1% and from 6.9% to 4.4%, respectively).

Overall, the prevalence of any level of cannabis use increased from 13.9% in 2017 to 15.4% in 2019. Both males and females showed a similar increase in reported frequent cannabis use with vaping of approximately 3%.

The results document that vaping cannabis has become more common than smoking alone among U.S. teens across almost all demographic groups, and across sex, race, urbanicity, and level of parent education; however, the increased was especially marked among Hispanic/Latinx teens and those of lower socioeconomic status, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined the associations between cannabis use with and without vaping and concurrent nicotine and alcohol use. Overall, the strongest association was between smoking or vaping nicotine and vaping cannabis; teens who smoked or vaped nicotine were 42 times more likely than nonnicotine users to report vaping cannabis in the past 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 42.28). In addition, more occasions of binge drinking were more strongly associated with cannabis use with vaping (up to 10 times more likely), compared with cannabis use without vaping, (aORs, 4.48-10.09).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of questions on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol content of the cannabis products used, although evidence suggests that the potency of cannabis products in the United States is increasing, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the cross-sectional design, which prevents making associations about causality, and lack of data on the quantity of cannabis used; only data on frequency of use were recorded.

However, the results reflect a rise in cannabis use with vaping among teens in the United States, along with an increased risk of tobacco use, e-cigarette use, and binge drinking, the researchers said.

As cannabis legalization expands across the United States, policies are needed to deter use among adolescents, the researchers wrote. “These policies should be crafted to reduce an emphasis on criminalization in preference for public health promotion given the history of unequal application of punitive consequences of drug use for racialized minorities in the United States. As products, delivery systems, potency, and marketing proliferate within a for-profit industry, increased attention to youth trends, including investment in sustained and evidence-based prevention and intervention, is increasingly necessary.”

The take-home message for clinicians is to ask whether your patients are vaping, because the prevalence is not only up, but fairly universal, Mx. Kreski said. “Have a discussion that covers a broad range of substance use topics and informs teens of the potential risks of vaping, while avoiding stigma.”

The message for parents is “to talk to your kids about the risks of vaping,” said Mx. Kreski. “Prioritize open communication rather than punishment, and work together with your teens to prevent or reduce vaping.” The message for teens: “Understand that vaping has risks. You should feel empowered to talk to your parents or doctor about those risks. While it may seem like everyone’s vaping, the majority don’t. Keeping communication open between parents/caregivers, teens, and health care providers is one of the best ways to address these trends in vaping.”
 

Beware more powerful cannabis products

“While drug use in general is declining in adolescents, marijuana use remains very common,” Kelly A. Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.

“There is growing evidence that marijuana is now the first drug used by adolescents – replacing alcohol and nicotine – and frequent use can lead to substance abuse,” said Dr. Curran, who specializes in adolescent medicine but was involved in the study. “Cannabis use patterns have evolved over time. As I frequently tell my patients and their families, new strains and hybrids of marijuana have higher potencies of THC. Many adolescents are eschewing smoking and in its place using marijuana concentrates (wax, oil, shatter) via vape, dab pen, or rig. Use of these methods puts adolescents at high risk of social and health complications such as [e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury], cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, and psychosis – and understanding these patterns and associated drug use helps health care professionals and parents keep adolescents safe.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that marijuana use via vaping continues to rise and to become more common than “traditional” marijuana smoking, Dr. Curran said. “This increase is across genders, in nearly all race/ethnicities (especially in Latinx youth), and in youth from lower socioeconomic status.” Vaping marijuana is associated with other substance abuse, so health care professionals should include questions about different forms of marijuana use, such as vape, dab pen, or rig, when working with patients, and counsel patients and families about the risks associated with use of any of these products.

The study was supported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
 

More teenagers in the United States reported cannabis use with vaping in 2019, compared with 2017, while cannabis use without vaping declined, based on annual survey data from more than 50,000 teens.

“With vaping prevalence rising so quickly among teens, getting a clearer picture of how cannabis use is shifting helps inform prevention and cessation efforts,” corresponding author Noah T. Kreski, MPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“In just 2 years, the most common cannabis use pattern changed from ‘occasional use without vaping’ to ‘frequent use with vaping,’ said Mx. Kreski, who uses the honorific Mx. and the pronouns they/them. “Knowing that, as well as the high overlap of cannabis vaping with nicotine use and binge drinking, adds to the urgency of reducing adolescent vaping.”

To quantify the trends in cannabis vaping, the researchers reviewed data from Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of high school students across the United States. The study population included 51,052 individuals; approximately 49% were male and 49% were non-Hispanic White. The researchers examined frequency of cannabis use, trends across demographic groups, and concurrent use of cannabis and other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The findings were published in the journal Addiction.

Frequent cannabis use was defined as six or more times in the past 30 days; occasional use was defined as one to five times in the past 30 days.

Frequent cannabis use with vaping increased from 2.1% in 2017 to 5.4% in 2019. Occasional cannabis use with vaping also increased, though less dramatically, from less than 2% in 2017 to approximately 3.5% in 2019.

By contrast, both frequent and occasional cannabis use without vaping declined from 2017 to 2019 (from 3.8% to 2.1% and from 6.9% to 4.4%, respectively).

Overall, the prevalence of any level of cannabis use increased from 13.9% in 2017 to 15.4% in 2019. Both males and females showed a similar increase in reported frequent cannabis use with vaping of approximately 3%.

The results document that vaping cannabis has become more common than smoking alone among U.S. teens across almost all demographic groups, and across sex, race, urbanicity, and level of parent education; however, the increased was especially marked among Hispanic/Latinx teens and those of lower socioeconomic status, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined the associations between cannabis use with and without vaping and concurrent nicotine and alcohol use. Overall, the strongest association was between smoking or vaping nicotine and vaping cannabis; teens who smoked or vaped nicotine were 42 times more likely than nonnicotine users to report vaping cannabis in the past 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 42.28). In addition, more occasions of binge drinking were more strongly associated with cannabis use with vaping (up to 10 times more likely), compared with cannabis use without vaping, (aORs, 4.48-10.09).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of questions on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol content of the cannabis products used, although evidence suggests that the potency of cannabis products in the United States is increasing, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the cross-sectional design, which prevents making associations about causality, and lack of data on the quantity of cannabis used; only data on frequency of use were recorded.

However, the results reflect a rise in cannabis use with vaping among teens in the United States, along with an increased risk of tobacco use, e-cigarette use, and binge drinking, the researchers said.

As cannabis legalization expands across the United States, policies are needed to deter use among adolescents, the researchers wrote. “These policies should be crafted to reduce an emphasis on criminalization in preference for public health promotion given the history of unequal application of punitive consequences of drug use for racialized minorities in the United States. As products, delivery systems, potency, and marketing proliferate within a for-profit industry, increased attention to youth trends, including investment in sustained and evidence-based prevention and intervention, is increasingly necessary.”

The take-home message for clinicians is to ask whether your patients are vaping, because the prevalence is not only up, but fairly universal, Mx. Kreski said. “Have a discussion that covers a broad range of substance use topics and informs teens of the potential risks of vaping, while avoiding stigma.”

The message for parents is “to talk to your kids about the risks of vaping,” said Mx. Kreski. “Prioritize open communication rather than punishment, and work together with your teens to prevent or reduce vaping.” The message for teens: “Understand that vaping has risks. You should feel empowered to talk to your parents or doctor about those risks. While it may seem like everyone’s vaping, the majority don’t. Keeping communication open between parents/caregivers, teens, and health care providers is one of the best ways to address these trends in vaping.”
 

Beware more powerful cannabis products

“While drug use in general is declining in adolescents, marijuana use remains very common,” Kelly A. Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.

“There is growing evidence that marijuana is now the first drug used by adolescents – replacing alcohol and nicotine – and frequent use can lead to substance abuse,” said Dr. Curran, who specializes in adolescent medicine but was involved in the study. “Cannabis use patterns have evolved over time. As I frequently tell my patients and their families, new strains and hybrids of marijuana have higher potencies of THC. Many adolescents are eschewing smoking and in its place using marijuana concentrates (wax, oil, shatter) via vape, dab pen, or rig. Use of these methods puts adolescents at high risk of social and health complications such as [e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury], cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, and psychosis – and understanding these patterns and associated drug use helps health care professionals and parents keep adolescents safe.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that marijuana use via vaping continues to rise and to become more common than “traditional” marijuana smoking, Dr. Curran said. “This increase is across genders, in nearly all race/ethnicities (especially in Latinx youth), and in youth from lower socioeconomic status.” Vaping marijuana is associated with other substance abuse, so health care professionals should include questions about different forms of marijuana use, such as vape, dab pen, or rig, when working with patients, and counsel patients and families about the risks associated with use of any of these products.

The study was supported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
 

More teenagers in the United States reported cannabis use with vaping in 2019, compared with 2017, while cannabis use without vaping declined, based on annual survey data from more than 50,000 teens.

“With vaping prevalence rising so quickly among teens, getting a clearer picture of how cannabis use is shifting helps inform prevention and cessation efforts,” corresponding author Noah T. Kreski, MPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“In just 2 years, the most common cannabis use pattern changed from ‘occasional use without vaping’ to ‘frequent use with vaping,’ said Mx. Kreski, who uses the honorific Mx. and the pronouns they/them. “Knowing that, as well as the high overlap of cannabis vaping with nicotine use and binge drinking, adds to the urgency of reducing adolescent vaping.”

To quantify the trends in cannabis vaping, the researchers reviewed data from Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of high school students across the United States. The study population included 51,052 individuals; approximately 49% were male and 49% were non-Hispanic White. The researchers examined frequency of cannabis use, trends across demographic groups, and concurrent use of cannabis and other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The findings were published in the journal Addiction.

Frequent cannabis use was defined as six or more times in the past 30 days; occasional use was defined as one to five times in the past 30 days.

Frequent cannabis use with vaping increased from 2.1% in 2017 to 5.4% in 2019. Occasional cannabis use with vaping also increased, though less dramatically, from less than 2% in 2017 to approximately 3.5% in 2019.

By contrast, both frequent and occasional cannabis use without vaping declined from 2017 to 2019 (from 3.8% to 2.1% and from 6.9% to 4.4%, respectively).

Overall, the prevalence of any level of cannabis use increased from 13.9% in 2017 to 15.4% in 2019. Both males and females showed a similar increase in reported frequent cannabis use with vaping of approximately 3%.

The results document that vaping cannabis has become more common than smoking alone among U.S. teens across almost all demographic groups, and across sex, race, urbanicity, and level of parent education; however, the increased was especially marked among Hispanic/Latinx teens and those of lower socioeconomic status, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined the associations between cannabis use with and without vaping and concurrent nicotine and alcohol use. Overall, the strongest association was between smoking or vaping nicotine and vaping cannabis; teens who smoked or vaped nicotine were 42 times more likely than nonnicotine users to report vaping cannabis in the past 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 42.28). In addition, more occasions of binge drinking were more strongly associated with cannabis use with vaping (up to 10 times more likely), compared with cannabis use without vaping, (aORs, 4.48-10.09).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of questions on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol content of the cannabis products used, although evidence suggests that the potency of cannabis products in the United States is increasing, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the cross-sectional design, which prevents making associations about causality, and lack of data on the quantity of cannabis used; only data on frequency of use were recorded.

However, the results reflect a rise in cannabis use with vaping among teens in the United States, along with an increased risk of tobacco use, e-cigarette use, and binge drinking, the researchers said.

As cannabis legalization expands across the United States, policies are needed to deter use among adolescents, the researchers wrote. “These policies should be crafted to reduce an emphasis on criminalization in preference for public health promotion given the history of unequal application of punitive consequences of drug use for racialized minorities in the United States. As products, delivery systems, potency, and marketing proliferate within a for-profit industry, increased attention to youth trends, including investment in sustained and evidence-based prevention and intervention, is increasingly necessary.”

The take-home message for clinicians is to ask whether your patients are vaping, because the prevalence is not only up, but fairly universal, Mx. Kreski said. “Have a discussion that covers a broad range of substance use topics and informs teens of the potential risks of vaping, while avoiding stigma.”

The message for parents is “to talk to your kids about the risks of vaping,” said Mx. Kreski. “Prioritize open communication rather than punishment, and work together with your teens to prevent or reduce vaping.” The message for teens: “Understand that vaping has risks. You should feel empowered to talk to your parents or doctor about those risks. While it may seem like everyone’s vaping, the majority don’t. Keeping communication open between parents/caregivers, teens, and health care providers is one of the best ways to address these trends in vaping.”
 

Beware more powerful cannabis products

“While drug use in general is declining in adolescents, marijuana use remains very common,” Kelly A. Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.

“There is growing evidence that marijuana is now the first drug used by adolescents – replacing alcohol and nicotine – and frequent use can lead to substance abuse,” said Dr. Curran, who specializes in adolescent medicine but was involved in the study. “Cannabis use patterns have evolved over time. As I frequently tell my patients and their families, new strains and hybrids of marijuana have higher potencies of THC. Many adolescents are eschewing smoking and in its place using marijuana concentrates (wax, oil, shatter) via vape, dab pen, or rig. Use of these methods puts adolescents at high risk of social and health complications such as [e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury], cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, and psychosis – and understanding these patterns and associated drug use helps health care professionals and parents keep adolescents safe.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that marijuana use via vaping continues to rise and to become more common than “traditional” marijuana smoking, Dr. Curran said. “This increase is across genders, in nearly all race/ethnicities (especially in Latinx youth), and in youth from lower socioeconomic status.” Vaping marijuana is associated with other substance abuse, so health care professionals should include questions about different forms of marijuana use, such as vape, dab pen, or rig, when working with patients, and counsel patients and families about the risks associated with use of any of these products.

The study was supported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
 

Many of us are reluctant to throw things out.

We buy. We accumulate. We collect. Eventually our attics are packed with dusty heirlooms that we rarely, if ever, look at. Eventually we’re forced to pare down and head to the Goodwill.

But not all of us.

Hoarding – or the prolonged difficulty of discarding unneeded possessions – is pervasive in our culture, affecting nearly 3% of the population. This compulsive collecting, and unwillingness to part with “stuff,” is even the subject of multiple popular television series.

How do you conceptualize hoarding behavior?

The core feature of hoarding is the inability to throw things away. This can be due to many different reasons, whether there’s a strong sentimental attachment or the belief that you will need these items one day. Compulsive buying is often involved, and inevitable clutter.

How was hoarding first conceptualized among psychiatrists and psychologists? And when did the term first enter the lexicon?

It was originally conceptualized as a difficult-to-treat subtype of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). A lot of that work identifying this subgroup was going on in the late 1980s and early 1990s. There was a small but growing group of researchers demonstrating that this is fundamentally different from OCD in several ways.

In terms of the clinical presentation, the comorbidity patterns are different from those for OCD. And the course is a little bit different; we see a progressive development across the lifespan, as opposed to a clear-cut diagnosis earlier in life, as is typically seen with OCD. By the time a lot of people seek treatment, they’re often being brought in by, say, family members when they’re a little bit older. With hoarding, there is also this consistent pattern of poor treatment response across the board, whether to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or behavioral therapy.

A lot of this work together led to advocacy for recognizing hoarding as an independent diagnosis in the DSM-5. I think official recognition by our “big book” prompted more attention to this population. Previously these patients probably would have been diagnosed with OCD, and it really isn’t appropriate to think of hoarding as purely an anxiety disorder.
 

Hoarding exposure and future mental health

You have a new study, published in Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, looking at mental health among adult children of parents with hoarding problems. Can you tell us what inspired you to run this study, and what you found?

There were a couple of factors.

We’d seen a lot of folks with hoarding in OCD specialty clinics, so my clinical experiences with this population certainly drew me to this general area. But then, at the same time, I have this broad training in child mental health. And childhood trauma or adverse childhood experiences, which can include being around hoarding, can be a very difficult thing to live through and deal with. And here I have to give a lot of credit to Suzanne Chabaud, PhD, of the OCD Institute of Greater New Orleans, who’s one of the coauthors on the paper. She’s been beating the drum of thinking about the family and kids of people with hoarding disorders for years. My interests came from some of those experiences, but she had the good idea of really looking at this problem in a detailed way.
 

Prior to your paper, had there been research on the prevalence of mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression in the children of people with hoarding behaviors?

That particular question was new to our paper. It was the first time anyone, to my knowledge, had looked at a validated assessment of anxiety and depression in this population.

How did you assess their symptoms and what did you find?

We asked study participants to think back on how they felt throughout their teenage years and gauged their responses with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), a measure of mental health disorders. I should say up front that we didn’t have a control group. But we found that among our 414 study participants, somewhere between 30% and 50% reported clinically significant anxiety or depressive symptoms, far higher than you’d expect in the normal population. So when looking back on how they were feeling as teenagers in that environment, they were struggling, and they often felt rejected by their parents.

We also found that almost 10% of participants were threatened with eviction at some point in their childhood; 15% had to live outside of their home at some point, because of the clutter; and 2% had involvement from child protective services and were removed from the home.
 

I know you recruited patients from online forums established by the children of hoarding parents. Presumably, these are the people most affected by this phenomenon. How does this play out in people who simply like to, say, collect something? Is this a continuum of behavior, with a breaking point at which it becomes a pathology?

I think it’s safe to conceptualize collecting and hoarding as a continuum, and you’ve got to draw a line somewhere in terms of clinical significance.

Did you assess whether the children of hoarders were more likely to hoard themselves as adults?

This is our follow-up paper; we haven’t looked at it yet.

But in looking at preliminary data, the prevalence seems pretty low, actually, at least in our sample. And as you mentioned, in our study there were folks who were seeking support specifically because they grew up in a really cluttered home.

Management

How do mental health providers typically address and treat hoarding?

To my knowledge, there are no current Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for hoarding, though psychiatrists will prescribe SSRIs and try to treat co-occurring problems such as depression and anxiety symptoms.

I can speak to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in a bit more detail. A number of randomized controlled trials support CBT for hoarding. I mentioned before that when we as a field treated hoarding akin to OCD and did exposure and response prevention therapy, we didn’t really target the specific features of hoarding. People didn’t do that well.

But now researchers are focusing on CBT interventions focused on discarding tasks that really address hoarding. You can create different categories for different items: Patients can either keep them, throw them out, or donate them. You can explore what thoughts or expectations are associated with these items and try to address them. Clinicians can help patients look at, say, different areas of their house and discuss what they might be willing to part with or at least think about parting with. You find their internal motivations for keeping things.

This sort of therapy generally takes longer than it does for, say, OCD. It can be a little bit slower, particularly if someone has a lot of stuff. And often it can involve doing home visits. In the age of Zoom this is a little bit easier because home visits aren’t always feasible.
 

What role does family play in managing hoarding? I imagine that including loved ones and friends in the process could be quite helpful.

Yes, absolutely. And social support, more broadly.

A colleague I worked with did a really interesting study where she looked at psychologist-delivered versus peer-delivered CBT for hoarding. They found that the biggest predictor of improved outcomes was having what they called a “clutter buddy,” which follows the Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor model. This would be somebody else struggling with the same problem who’s an accountability partner helping a patient follow through with their goals related to discarding. I think that finding underscores how important that social support is.
 

Any final thoughts for our audience of clinicians and researchers on how to approach hoarding?

I think there’s been a stigma – at least in psychology circles – that it’s not really treatable because of that earlier work with OCD. But on the CBT side, there’s now good reason to believe that people can live much happier lives and overcome this problem. CBT does seem to work for a lot of people with hoarding. That’s what I’d like to emphasize.

Dr. Stetka is executive editor for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of us are reluctant to throw things out.

We buy. We accumulate. We collect. Eventually our attics are packed with dusty heirlooms that we rarely, if ever, look at. Eventually we’re forced to pare down and head to the Goodwill.

But not all of us.

Hoarding – or the prolonged difficulty of discarding unneeded possessions – is pervasive in our culture, affecting nearly 3% of the population. This compulsive collecting, and unwillingness to part with “stuff,” is even the subject of multiple popular television series.

How do you conceptualize hoarding behavior?

The core feature of hoarding is the inability to throw things away. This can be due to many different reasons, whether there’s a strong sentimental attachment or the belief that you will need these items one day. Compulsive buying is often involved, and inevitable clutter.

How was hoarding first conceptualized among psychiatrists and psychologists? And when did the term first enter the lexicon?

It was originally conceptualized as a difficult-to-treat subtype of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). A lot of that work identifying this subgroup was going on in the late 1980s and early 1990s. There was a small but growing group of researchers demonstrating that this is fundamentally different from OCD in several ways.

In terms of the clinical presentation, the comorbidity patterns are different from those for OCD. And the course is a little bit different; we see a progressive development across the lifespan, as opposed to a clear-cut diagnosis earlier in life, as is typically seen with OCD. By the time a lot of people seek treatment, they’re often being brought in by, say, family members when they’re a little bit older. With hoarding, there is also this consistent pattern of poor treatment response across the board, whether to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or behavioral therapy.

A lot of this work together led to advocacy for recognizing hoarding as an independent diagnosis in the DSM-5. I think official recognition by our “big book” prompted more attention to this population. Previously these patients probably would have been diagnosed with OCD, and it really isn’t appropriate to think of hoarding as purely an anxiety disorder.
 

Hoarding exposure and future mental health

You have a new study, published in Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, looking at mental health among adult children of parents with hoarding problems. Can you tell us what inspired you to run this study, and what you found?

There were a couple of factors.

We’d seen a lot of folks with hoarding in OCD specialty clinics, so my clinical experiences with this population certainly drew me to this general area. But then, at the same time, I have this broad training in child mental health. And childhood trauma or adverse childhood experiences, which can include being around hoarding, can be a very difficult thing to live through and deal with. And here I have to give a lot of credit to Suzanne Chabaud, PhD, of the OCD Institute of Greater New Orleans, who’s one of the coauthors on the paper. She’s been beating the drum of thinking about the family and kids of people with hoarding disorders for years. My interests came from some of those experiences, but she had the good idea of really looking at this problem in a detailed way.
 

Prior to your paper, had there been research on the prevalence of mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression in the children of people with hoarding behaviors?

That particular question was new to our paper. It was the first time anyone, to my knowledge, had looked at a validated assessment of anxiety and depression in this population.

How did you assess their symptoms and what did you find?

We asked study participants to think back on how they felt throughout their teenage years and gauged their responses with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), a measure of mental health disorders. I should say up front that we didn’t have a control group. But we found that among our 414 study participants, somewhere between 30% and 50% reported clinically significant anxiety or depressive symptoms, far higher than you’d expect in the normal population. So when looking back on how they were feeling as teenagers in that environment, they were struggling, and they often felt rejected by their parents.

We also found that almost 10% of participants were threatened with eviction at some point in their childhood; 15% had to live outside of their home at some point, because of the clutter; and 2% had involvement from child protective services and were removed from the home.
 

I know you recruited patients from online forums established by the children of hoarding parents. Presumably, these are the people most affected by this phenomenon. How does this play out in people who simply like to, say, collect something? Is this a continuum of behavior, with a breaking point at which it becomes a pathology?

I think it’s safe to conceptualize collecting and hoarding as a continuum, and you’ve got to draw a line somewhere in terms of clinical significance.

Did you assess whether the children of hoarders were more likely to hoard themselves as adults?

This is our follow-up paper; we haven’t looked at it yet.

But in looking at preliminary data, the prevalence seems pretty low, actually, at least in our sample. And as you mentioned, in our study there were folks who were seeking support specifically because they grew up in a really cluttered home.

Management

How do mental health providers typically address and treat hoarding?

To my knowledge, there are no current Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for hoarding, though psychiatrists will prescribe SSRIs and try to treat co-occurring problems such as depression and anxiety symptoms.

I can speak to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in a bit more detail. A number of randomized controlled trials support CBT for hoarding. I mentioned before that when we as a field treated hoarding akin to OCD and did exposure and response prevention therapy, we didn’t really target the specific features of hoarding. People didn’t do that well.

But now researchers are focusing on CBT interventions focused on discarding tasks that really address hoarding. You can create different categories for different items: Patients can either keep them, throw them out, or donate them. You can explore what thoughts or expectations are associated with these items and try to address them. Clinicians can help patients look at, say, different areas of their house and discuss what they might be willing to part with or at least think about parting with. You find their internal motivations for keeping things.

This sort of therapy generally takes longer than it does for, say, OCD. It can be a little bit slower, particularly if someone has a lot of stuff. And often it can involve doing home visits. In the age of Zoom this is a little bit easier because home visits aren’t always feasible.
 

What role does family play in managing hoarding? I imagine that including loved ones and friends in the process could be quite helpful.

Yes, absolutely. And social support, more broadly.

A colleague I worked with did a really interesting study where she looked at psychologist-delivered versus peer-delivered CBT for hoarding. They found that the biggest predictor of improved outcomes was having what they called a “clutter buddy,” which follows the Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor model. This would be somebody else struggling with the same problem who’s an accountability partner helping a patient follow through with their goals related to discarding. I think that finding underscores how important that social support is.
 

Any final thoughts for our audience of clinicians and researchers on how to approach hoarding?

I think there’s been a stigma – at least in psychology circles – that it’s not really treatable because of that earlier work with OCD. But on the CBT side, there’s now good reason to believe that people can live much happier lives and overcome this problem. CBT does seem to work for a lot of people with hoarding. That’s what I’d like to emphasize.

Dr. Stetka is executive editor for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of us are reluctant to throw things out.

We buy. We accumulate. We collect. Eventually our attics are packed with dusty heirlooms that we rarely, if ever, look at. Eventually we’re forced to pare down and head to the Goodwill.

But not all of us.

Hoarding – or the prolonged difficulty of discarding unneeded possessions – is pervasive in our culture, affecting nearly 3% of the population. This compulsive collecting, and unwillingness to part with “stuff,” is even the subject of multiple popular television series.

How do you conceptualize hoarding behavior?

The core feature of hoarding is the inability to throw things away. This can be due to many different reasons, whether there’s a strong sentimental attachment or the belief that you will need these items one day. Compulsive buying is often involved, and inevitable clutter.

How was hoarding first conceptualized among psychiatrists and psychologists? And when did the term first enter the lexicon?

It was originally conceptualized as a difficult-to-treat subtype of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). A lot of that work identifying this subgroup was going on in the late 1980s and early 1990s. There was a small but growing group of researchers demonstrating that this is fundamentally different from OCD in several ways.

In terms of the clinical presentation, the comorbidity patterns are different from those for OCD. And the course is a little bit different; we see a progressive development across the lifespan, as opposed to a clear-cut diagnosis earlier in life, as is typically seen with OCD. By the time a lot of people seek treatment, they’re often being brought in by, say, family members when they’re a little bit older. With hoarding, there is also this consistent pattern of poor treatment response across the board, whether to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or behavioral therapy.

A lot of this work together led to advocacy for recognizing hoarding as an independent diagnosis in the DSM-5. I think official recognition by our “big book” prompted more attention to this population. Previously these patients probably would have been diagnosed with OCD, and it really isn’t appropriate to think of hoarding as purely an anxiety disorder.
 

Hoarding exposure and future mental health

You have a new study, published in Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, looking at mental health among adult children of parents with hoarding problems. Can you tell us what inspired you to run this study, and what you found?

There were a couple of factors.

We’d seen a lot of folks with hoarding in OCD specialty clinics, so my clinical experiences with this population certainly drew me to this general area. But then, at the same time, I have this broad training in child mental health. And childhood trauma or adverse childhood experiences, which can include being around hoarding, can be a very difficult thing to live through and deal with. And here I have to give a lot of credit to Suzanne Chabaud, PhD, of the OCD Institute of Greater New Orleans, who’s one of the coauthors on the paper. She’s been beating the drum of thinking about the family and kids of people with hoarding disorders for years. My interests came from some of those experiences, but she had the good idea of really looking at this problem in a detailed way.
 

Prior to your paper, had there been research on the prevalence of mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression in the children of people with hoarding behaviors?

That particular question was new to our paper. It was the first time anyone, to my knowledge, had looked at a validated assessment of anxiety and depression in this population.

How did you assess their symptoms and what did you find?

We asked study participants to think back on how they felt throughout their teenage years and gauged their responses with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), a measure of mental health disorders. I should say up front that we didn’t have a control group. But we found that among our 414 study participants, somewhere between 30% and 50% reported clinically significant anxiety or depressive symptoms, far higher than you’d expect in the normal population. So when looking back on how they were feeling as teenagers in that environment, they were struggling, and they often felt rejected by their parents.

We also found that almost 10% of participants were threatened with eviction at some point in their childhood; 15% had to live outside of their home at some point, because of the clutter; and 2% had involvement from child protective services and were removed from the home.
 

I know you recruited patients from online forums established by the children of hoarding parents. Presumably, these are the people most affected by this phenomenon. How does this play out in people who simply like to, say, collect something? Is this a continuum of behavior, with a breaking point at which it becomes a pathology?

I think it’s safe to conceptualize collecting and hoarding as a continuum, and you’ve got to draw a line somewhere in terms of clinical significance.

Did you assess whether the children of hoarders were more likely to hoard themselves as adults?

This is our follow-up paper; we haven’t looked at it yet.

But in looking at preliminary data, the prevalence seems pretty low, actually, at least in our sample. And as you mentioned, in our study there were folks who were seeking support specifically because they grew up in a really cluttered home.

Management

How do mental health providers typically address and treat hoarding?

To my knowledge, there are no current Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for hoarding, though psychiatrists will prescribe SSRIs and try to treat co-occurring problems such as depression and anxiety symptoms.

I can speak to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in a bit more detail. A number of randomized controlled trials support CBT for hoarding. I mentioned before that when we as a field treated hoarding akin to OCD and did exposure and response prevention therapy, we didn’t really target the specific features of hoarding. People didn’t do that well.

But now researchers are focusing on CBT interventions focused on discarding tasks that really address hoarding. You can create different categories for different items: Patients can either keep them, throw them out, or donate them. You can explore what thoughts or expectations are associated with these items and try to address them. Clinicians can help patients look at, say, different areas of their house and discuss what they might be willing to part with or at least think about parting with. You find their internal motivations for keeping things.

This sort of therapy generally takes longer than it does for, say, OCD. It can be a little bit slower, particularly if someone has a lot of stuff. And often it can involve doing home visits. In the age of Zoom this is a little bit easier because home visits aren’t always feasible.
 

What role does family play in managing hoarding? I imagine that including loved ones and friends in the process could be quite helpful.

Yes, absolutely. And social support, more broadly.

A colleague I worked with did a really interesting study where she looked at psychologist-delivered versus peer-delivered CBT for hoarding. They found that the biggest predictor of improved outcomes was having what they called a “clutter buddy,” which follows the Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor model. This would be somebody else struggling with the same problem who’s an accountability partner helping a patient follow through with their goals related to discarding. I think that finding underscores how important that social support is.
 

Any final thoughts for our audience of clinicians and researchers on how to approach hoarding?

I think there’s been a stigma – at least in psychology circles – that it’s not really treatable because of that earlier work with OCD. But on the CBT side, there’s now good reason to believe that people can live much happier lives and overcome this problem. CBT does seem to work for a lot of people with hoarding. That’s what I’d like to emphasize.

Dr. Stetka is executive editor for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly identified serum biomarkers have the potential to flag patients, via blood testing, with major depressive disorder (MDD) at high risk of suicide.

Investigators found patients with MDD who died by suicide had a gene expression signature in blood distinct from patients with MDD who died by other means.

The signature included genes involved in stress response changes, including polyamine metabolism, circadian rhythm, immune dysregulation, and telomere maintenance.

“These blood biomarkers are an important step toward developing blood tests to identify patients with imminent risk of ending their lives,” study investigator Adolfo Sequeira, PhD, associate researcher in the department of psychiatry and human behavior, University of California, Irvine, said in a news release.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze blood and brain samples in a well-defined population of MDDs demonstrating significant differences in gene expression associated with completed suicide,” Dr. Sequeira added.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

A pressing challenge

Suicide rates in the United States have jumped by more than 35% over the past 2 decades, with more than 48,000 deaths by suicide occurring just last year. MDD is the most common diagnosis among completed suicides, and identifying individuals at the highest risk for suicide remains a “pressing challenge,” the researchers noted.

They looked for changes in gene expression associated with suicide in archived postmortem blood and brain samples from adults with MDD who died by suicide (MDD-S) or by other means (MDD-NS), as well as a group of controls with no psychiatric illness.

In total, there were blood and brain samples for 45 adults, including 53 blood samples and 69 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tissue samples.

In blood, investigators identified 14 genes that significantly differentiated MDD-S from MDD-NS. The top six genes differentially expressed in blood were PER3, MTPAP, SLC25A26, CD19, SOX9, and GAR1.

In addition, four genes showed significant changes in brain and blood between the MDD-S and MDD-NS groups. SOX9 was decreased and PER3 was increased in MDD-S in both blood and brain samples, while CD19 and TERF1 were increased in blood but decreased in DLPFC.

SOX9, an astrocytic marker in the brain and B-cell marker in blood, has been shown to be decreased in MDD-S compared with controls in the prefrontal cortex.

In the current study, researchers found that SOX9 expression was significantly reduced both in blood and brain in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS, “suggesting similar immune/astrocytic dysregulations in suicide that could be further investigated.”
 

Potential signatures, potential targets

PER3 is a circadian rhythm gene implicated in sleep disorders associated with shifts in circadian rhythms and is thought to increase susceptibility to MDD.

Mutations in PER3 have been shown previously to alter multiple systems, including response to antidepressants; and increased blood expression of PER1 has been linked to suicidality in women, the researchers noted. 

There also were significantly higher levels of two inflammatory markers (CD19 and CD6 genes) in blood of MDD-S patients compared to MDD-NS patients.

Another “significant” finding was the involvement of several mitochondrial genes in suicide, the researchers said. 

Two nuclear genes coding for mitochondria-located proteins MTPAP (a mitochondrial poly(A) polymerase) and the mitochondrial polyamine transporter SLC25A26 were increased in blood in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS and controls, suggesting that “mitochondrial alterations could be used as potential signatures to differentiate MDD-S from MDD-NS patients and also from controls.”

The researchers added that the genes found to be dysregulated in suicide represent potential targets for future drug therapies to prevent suicide and could also be used to develop a molecular test to identify individuals at high risk for suicide.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and the Pritzker Family Philanthropic Fund. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Newly identified serum biomarkers have the potential to flag patients, via blood testing, with major depressive disorder (MDD) at high risk of suicide.

Investigators found patients with MDD who died by suicide had a gene expression signature in blood distinct from patients with MDD who died by other means.

The signature included genes involved in stress response changes, including polyamine metabolism, circadian rhythm, immune dysregulation, and telomere maintenance.

“These blood biomarkers are an important step toward developing blood tests to identify patients with imminent risk of ending their lives,” study investigator Adolfo Sequeira, PhD, associate researcher in the department of psychiatry and human behavior, University of California, Irvine, said in a news release.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze blood and brain samples in a well-defined population of MDDs demonstrating significant differences in gene expression associated with completed suicide,” Dr. Sequeira added.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

A pressing challenge

Suicide rates in the United States have jumped by more than 35% over the past 2 decades, with more than 48,000 deaths by suicide occurring just last year. MDD is the most common diagnosis among completed suicides, and identifying individuals at the highest risk for suicide remains a “pressing challenge,” the researchers noted.

They looked for changes in gene expression associated with suicide in archived postmortem blood and brain samples from adults with MDD who died by suicide (MDD-S) or by other means (MDD-NS), as well as a group of controls with no psychiatric illness.

In total, there were blood and brain samples for 45 adults, including 53 blood samples and 69 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tissue samples.

In blood, investigators identified 14 genes that significantly differentiated MDD-S from MDD-NS. The top six genes differentially expressed in blood were PER3, MTPAP, SLC25A26, CD19, SOX9, and GAR1.

In addition, four genes showed significant changes in brain and blood between the MDD-S and MDD-NS groups. SOX9 was decreased and PER3 was increased in MDD-S in both blood and brain samples, while CD19 and TERF1 were increased in blood but decreased in DLPFC.

SOX9, an astrocytic marker in the brain and B-cell marker in blood, has been shown to be decreased in MDD-S compared with controls in the prefrontal cortex.

In the current study, researchers found that SOX9 expression was significantly reduced both in blood and brain in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS, “suggesting similar immune/astrocytic dysregulations in suicide that could be further investigated.”
 

Potential signatures, potential targets

PER3 is a circadian rhythm gene implicated in sleep disorders associated with shifts in circadian rhythms and is thought to increase susceptibility to MDD.

Mutations in PER3 have been shown previously to alter multiple systems, including response to antidepressants; and increased blood expression of PER1 has been linked to suicidality in women, the researchers noted. 

There also were significantly higher levels of two inflammatory markers (CD19 and CD6 genes) in blood of MDD-S patients compared to MDD-NS patients.

Another “significant” finding was the involvement of several mitochondrial genes in suicide, the researchers said. 

Two nuclear genes coding for mitochondria-located proteins MTPAP (a mitochondrial poly(A) polymerase) and the mitochondrial polyamine transporter SLC25A26 were increased in blood in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS and controls, suggesting that “mitochondrial alterations could be used as potential signatures to differentiate MDD-S from MDD-NS patients and also from controls.”

The researchers added that the genes found to be dysregulated in suicide represent potential targets for future drug therapies to prevent suicide and could also be used to develop a molecular test to identify individuals at high risk for suicide.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and the Pritzker Family Philanthropic Fund. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Newly identified serum biomarkers have the potential to flag patients, via blood testing, with major depressive disorder (MDD) at high risk of suicide.

Investigators found patients with MDD who died by suicide had a gene expression signature in blood distinct from patients with MDD who died by other means.

The signature included genes involved in stress response changes, including polyamine metabolism, circadian rhythm, immune dysregulation, and telomere maintenance.

“These blood biomarkers are an important step toward developing blood tests to identify patients with imminent risk of ending their lives,” study investigator Adolfo Sequeira, PhD, associate researcher in the department of psychiatry and human behavior, University of California, Irvine, said in a news release.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze blood and brain samples in a well-defined population of MDDs demonstrating significant differences in gene expression associated with completed suicide,” Dr. Sequeira added.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

A pressing challenge

Suicide rates in the United States have jumped by more than 35% over the past 2 decades, with more than 48,000 deaths by suicide occurring just last year. MDD is the most common diagnosis among completed suicides, and identifying individuals at the highest risk for suicide remains a “pressing challenge,” the researchers noted.

They looked for changes in gene expression associated with suicide in archived postmortem blood and brain samples from adults with MDD who died by suicide (MDD-S) or by other means (MDD-NS), as well as a group of controls with no psychiatric illness.

In total, there were blood and brain samples for 45 adults, including 53 blood samples and 69 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tissue samples.

In blood, investigators identified 14 genes that significantly differentiated MDD-S from MDD-NS. The top six genes differentially expressed in blood were PER3, MTPAP, SLC25A26, CD19, SOX9, and GAR1.

In addition, four genes showed significant changes in brain and blood between the MDD-S and MDD-NS groups. SOX9 was decreased and PER3 was increased in MDD-S in both blood and brain samples, while CD19 and TERF1 were increased in blood but decreased in DLPFC.

SOX9, an astrocytic marker in the brain and B-cell marker in blood, has been shown to be decreased in MDD-S compared with controls in the prefrontal cortex.

In the current study, researchers found that SOX9 expression was significantly reduced both in blood and brain in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS, “suggesting similar immune/astrocytic dysregulations in suicide that could be further investigated.”
 

Potential signatures, potential targets

PER3 is a circadian rhythm gene implicated in sleep disorders associated with shifts in circadian rhythms and is thought to increase susceptibility to MDD.

Mutations in PER3 have been shown previously to alter multiple systems, including response to antidepressants; and increased blood expression of PER1 has been linked to suicidality in women, the researchers noted. 

There also were significantly higher levels of two inflammatory markers (CD19 and CD6 genes) in blood of MDD-S patients compared to MDD-NS patients.

Another “significant” finding was the involvement of several mitochondrial genes in suicide, the researchers said. 

Two nuclear genes coding for mitochondria-located proteins MTPAP (a mitochondrial poly(A) polymerase) and the mitochondrial polyamine transporter SLC25A26 were increased in blood in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS and controls, suggesting that “mitochondrial alterations could be used as potential signatures to differentiate MDD-S from MDD-NS patients and also from controls.”

The researchers added that the genes found to be dysregulated in suicide represent potential targets for future drug therapies to prevent suicide and could also be used to develop a molecular test to identify individuals at high risk for suicide.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and the Pritzker Family Philanthropic Fund. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study that tracked psychopathology in 13,000 children and adolescents found that mental health difficulties fluctuate over time, especially in younger children, and those trajectories differ among boys and girls.

Investigators also found a strong correlation between new incidence of high psychopathology and externalizing problems such as hyperactivity. “It is of paramount importance to identify factors that distinguish those with persisting problems and escalating trajectories so that resources can be appropriately directed,” wrote the authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Recent studies have shown that concurrent and sequential comorbidity of psychiatric disorders are very common in adult populations, lead author Colm Healy, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher for psychiatry with the University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland, said in an interview.

The speculation is that this occurs in early life when psychiatry symptoms experience high fluidity. “This presents a complex scenario to model, where young people’s mental health appears to shift and change across development. Few investigations to date have had the data available to examine these trajectories over the full range of child development,” said Dr. Healy.

He and his colleagues attempted to map the profiles and trajectories of psychopathology in children and adolescents, using latent profile transition analysis (LPTA), a person-centered method, to assess comorbidity and movement in the various phases of childhood development.

“The idea behind person-centered methods such as LTPA is that it identifies unobserved subgroups of participants who respond similarly to specific variables – in this case responses to a broad measure of psychopathology,” explained Dr. Healy.

The study included 7,507 children from the child sample (ages 3, 5, and 9 years) and 6,039 children from the adolescent sample (ages 9, 13, and 17 or 18 years). Data analysis took place from October 2020 to September 2021.

Dr. Healy and colleagues in a supplementary investigation compared cohorts at age 9 years to look for sex and generational differences.
 

Four developmental profiles

Researchers identified 4 distinct developmental profies for person-centered psychopathological trajectories: no psychopathology (incidence range, 60%-70%), high psychopathology (incidence range, 3%-5%), externalizing problems (incidence range, 15%-25%), and internalizing problems (incidence range, 7%-12%).

Internalizing problems reflect issues with peers and emotional problems whereas externalizing problems more closely associate with hyperactivity and conduct.

Less than 5% of the youth studied experienced persistent symptoms. However, 48.6% in the child cohort and 44.1% in the adolescent cohort moved into one of the 3 psychopathology profiles (high psychopathology, externalizing, internalizing problems) at some point in development.

The spread of trajectories was more diverse in the child cohort, said Dr. Healy. “Children ebbed and flowed between the different profiles over time with a large proportion falling into one of the psychopathology categories and then switching between these profiles.” Switching was also evident in the adolescent cohort but to a lesser extent, he said.
 

Externalizing problems link to high psychopathology

Rates of remittance were higher among individuals in both cohorts for internalizing problems, compared with externalizing problems.

It’s possible that for some of these young people, internalizing problems are a reaction to environmental stressors such as bullying,” said Dr. Healy. “When that stress is relieved, the internalizing problems may dissipate.”

In a clinically relevant finding, children with externalizing problems (age 5, 129 [61.3%] and age 9, 95 [74.3%]) were more likely to present with new incidents of high psychopathology. This was also true in the adolescent group (age 13, 129 [91.1%] and age 17, 146 [89.9%]).

This suggests that a proportion of youth with externalizing problems have an escalating trajectory of psychopathology. “Thus, it may be possible to distinguish those with an escalating trajectory from a stable or remitting trajectory. The specific distinguishing factors require further investigation, but it has been observed before that some of those reporting externalizing problems in early life continue to have difficulties into later life,” noted Dr. Healy.

A combination of environmental or biological factors may explain this escalation, which could respond to early intervention, he said.

Overall, few children in the study transitioned directly from no psychopathology to high psychopathology.
 

Differences between boys, girls

In both cohorts, investigators noticed significant differences between the sexes.

Boys in childhood made up a larger proportion of the three psychopathology profiles. But by late adolescence, girls made up a larger proportion of the internalizing profile whereas boys made up a larger proportion of the externalizing profile. “These differences were in line with our expectations,” said Dr. Healy.

Trajectories also differed among boys and girls. In childhood, girls had a higher percentage of de-escalating trajectories relative to boys. “More girls than boys in the psychopathology profiles switched to a non or less severe profile. In adolescence, differences in trajectories were less obvious, with the exception that girls were more likely than boys to transition to internalizing problems from all of the other profiles at age 17,” said Dr. Healy.

Most young people who experience psychopathology will eventually see an improvement in symptoms, noted Dr. Healy. Next steps are to identify markers that distinguish individuals with persistent trajectories from remitting trajectories at the different phases of development, he said.
 

Study draws mixed reviews

Clinical psychiatrists not involved in the study had varying reactions to the results.

“This study is notable for its data-driven and powerful illustration of how childhood and adolescence are dynamic periods during which psychiatric symptoms can emerge and evolve,” said Sunny X. Tang, MD, a psychiatrist and an assistant professor at the Institute of Behavioral Science and the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York.

The clinical call for action is for person-centered mental health screening to be a routine part of pediatric and adolescent primary care or school-based services, noted Dr. Tang.

Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, did not think the study would have a significant impact on clinical practice.

He noted that Dr. Healy and coauthors found that some children stayed true to type, but many fluctuated between the four profile groups. The finding that fluctuation occurred more frequently in younger children is not surprising “and is consistent with what we know about the ‘moving targets’ that make diagnosing children so difficult,” said Dr. Nestadt.

“It would have been helpful to have identified clinical indicators of likely persistence in psychopathology, but the measure employed here did not allow that. It is also frustrating to not have any information on treatment, such that we cannot know whether the children who shifted to ‘no psychopathology’ did so because of treatment or spontaneously,” he added.

Victor M. Fornari, MD, MS, director of the Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at The Zucker Hillside Hospital and Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center, New York, said the study is an important contribution to understanding the development of psychopathology during childhood.

“Generally, it is felt that nearly one in five youth will meet criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder by the age of 18. It is well known that externalizing disorders like ADHD manifest earlier in childhood and that depression often manifests later in adolescence,” he said.

No disclosures were reported.

A study that tracked psychopathology in 13,000 children and adolescents found that mental health difficulties fluctuate over time, especially in younger children, and those trajectories differ among boys and girls.

Investigators also found a strong correlation between new incidence of high psychopathology and externalizing problems such as hyperactivity. “It is of paramount importance to identify factors that distinguish those with persisting problems and escalating trajectories so that resources can be appropriately directed,” wrote the authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Recent studies have shown that concurrent and sequential comorbidity of psychiatric disorders are very common in adult populations, lead author Colm Healy, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher for psychiatry with the University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland, said in an interview.

The speculation is that this occurs in early life when psychiatry symptoms experience high fluidity. “This presents a complex scenario to model, where young people’s mental health appears to shift and change across development. Few investigations to date have had the data available to examine these trajectories over the full range of child development,” said Dr. Healy.

He and his colleagues attempted to map the profiles and trajectories of psychopathology in children and adolescents, using latent profile transition analysis (LPTA), a person-centered method, to assess comorbidity and movement in the various phases of childhood development.

“The idea behind person-centered methods such as LTPA is that it identifies unobserved subgroups of participants who respond similarly to specific variables – in this case responses to a broad measure of psychopathology,” explained Dr. Healy.

The study included 7,507 children from the child sample (ages 3, 5, and 9 years) and 6,039 children from the adolescent sample (ages 9, 13, and 17 or 18 years). Data analysis took place from October 2020 to September 2021.

Dr. Healy and colleagues in a supplementary investigation compared cohorts at age 9 years to look for sex and generational differences.
 

Four developmental profiles

Researchers identified 4 distinct developmental profies for person-centered psychopathological trajectories: no psychopathology (incidence range, 60%-70%), high psychopathology (incidence range, 3%-5%), externalizing problems (incidence range, 15%-25%), and internalizing problems (incidence range, 7%-12%).

Internalizing problems reflect issues with peers and emotional problems whereas externalizing problems more closely associate with hyperactivity and conduct.

Less than 5% of the youth studied experienced persistent symptoms. However, 48.6% in the child cohort and 44.1% in the adolescent cohort moved into one of the 3 psychopathology profiles (high psychopathology, externalizing, internalizing problems) at some point in development.

The spread of trajectories was more diverse in the child cohort, said Dr. Healy. “Children ebbed and flowed between the different profiles over time with a large proportion falling into one of the psychopathology categories and then switching between these profiles.” Switching was also evident in the adolescent cohort but to a lesser extent, he said.
 

Externalizing problems link to high psychopathology

Rates of remittance were higher among individuals in both cohorts for internalizing problems, compared with externalizing problems.

It’s possible that for some of these young people, internalizing problems are a reaction to environmental stressors such as bullying,” said Dr. Healy. “When that stress is relieved, the internalizing problems may dissipate.”

In a clinically relevant finding, children with externalizing problems (age 5, 129 [61.3%] and age 9, 95 [74.3%]) were more likely to present with new incidents of high psychopathology. This was also true in the adolescent group (age 13, 129 [91.1%] and age 17, 146 [89.9%]).

This suggests that a proportion of youth with externalizing problems have an escalating trajectory of psychopathology. “Thus, it may be possible to distinguish those with an escalating trajectory from a stable or remitting trajectory. The specific distinguishing factors require further investigation, but it has been observed before that some of those reporting externalizing problems in early life continue to have difficulties into later life,” noted Dr. Healy.

A combination of environmental or biological factors may explain this escalation, which could respond to early intervention, he said.

Overall, few children in the study transitioned directly from no psychopathology to high psychopathology.
 

Differences between boys, girls

In both cohorts, investigators noticed significant differences between the sexes.

Boys in childhood made up a larger proportion of the three psychopathology profiles. But by late adolescence, girls made up a larger proportion of the internalizing profile whereas boys made up a larger proportion of the externalizing profile. “These differences were in line with our expectations,” said Dr. Healy.

Trajectories also differed among boys and girls. In childhood, girls had a higher percentage of de-escalating trajectories relative to boys. “More girls than boys in the psychopathology profiles switched to a non or less severe profile. In adolescence, differences in trajectories were less obvious, with the exception that girls were more likely than boys to transition to internalizing problems from all of the other profiles at age 17,” said Dr. Healy.

Most young people who experience psychopathology will eventually see an improvement in symptoms, noted Dr. Healy. Next steps are to identify markers that distinguish individuals with persistent trajectories from remitting trajectories at the different phases of development, he said.
 

Study draws mixed reviews

Clinical psychiatrists not involved in the study had varying reactions to the results.

“This study is notable for its data-driven and powerful illustration of how childhood and adolescence are dynamic periods during which psychiatric symptoms can emerge and evolve,” said Sunny X. Tang, MD, a psychiatrist and an assistant professor at the Institute of Behavioral Science and the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York.

The clinical call for action is for person-centered mental health screening to be a routine part of pediatric and adolescent primary care or school-based services, noted Dr. Tang.

Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, did not think the study would have a significant impact on clinical practice.

He noted that Dr. Healy and coauthors found that some children stayed true to type, but many fluctuated between the four profile groups. The finding that fluctuation occurred more frequently in younger children is not surprising “and is consistent with what we know about the ‘moving targets’ that make diagnosing children so difficult,” said Dr. Nestadt.

“It would have been helpful to have identified clinical indicators of likely persistence in psychopathology, but the measure employed here did not allow that. It is also frustrating to not have any information on treatment, such that we cannot know whether the children who shifted to ‘no psychopathology’ did so because of treatment or spontaneously,” he added.

Victor M. Fornari, MD, MS, director of the Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at The Zucker Hillside Hospital and Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center, New York, said the study is an important contribution to understanding the development of psychopathology during childhood.

“Generally, it is felt that nearly one in five youth will meet criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder by the age of 18. It is well known that externalizing disorders like ADHD manifest earlier in childhood and that depression often manifests later in adolescence,” he said.

No disclosures were reported.

A study that tracked psychopathology in 13,000 children and adolescents found that mental health difficulties fluctuate over time, especially in younger children, and those trajectories differ among boys and girls.

Investigators also found a strong correlation between new incidence of high psychopathology and externalizing problems such as hyperactivity. “It is of paramount importance to identify factors that distinguish those with persisting problems and escalating trajectories so that resources can be appropriately directed,” wrote the authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Recent studies have shown that concurrent and sequential comorbidity of psychiatric disorders are very common in adult populations, lead author Colm Healy, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher for psychiatry with the University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland, said in an interview.

The speculation is that this occurs in early life when psychiatry symptoms experience high fluidity. “This presents a complex scenario to model, where young people’s mental health appears to shift and change across development. Few investigations to date have had the data available to examine these trajectories over the full range of child development,” said Dr. Healy.

He and his colleagues attempted to map the profiles and trajectories of psychopathology in children and adolescents, using latent profile transition analysis (LPTA), a person-centered method, to assess comorbidity and movement in the various phases of childhood development.

“The idea behind person-centered methods such as LTPA is that it identifies unobserved subgroups of participants who respond similarly to specific variables – in this case responses to a broad measure of psychopathology,” explained Dr. Healy.

The study included 7,507 children from the child sample (ages 3, 5, and 9 years) and 6,039 children from the adolescent sample (ages 9, 13, and 17 or 18 years). Data analysis took place from October 2020 to September 2021.

Dr. Healy and colleagues in a supplementary investigation compared cohorts at age 9 years to look for sex and generational differences.
 

Four developmental profiles

Researchers identified 4 distinct developmental profies for person-centered psychopathological trajectories: no psychopathology (incidence range, 60%-70%), high psychopathology (incidence range, 3%-5%), externalizing problems (incidence range, 15%-25%), and internalizing problems (incidence range, 7%-12%).

Internalizing problems reflect issues with peers and emotional problems whereas externalizing problems more closely associate with hyperactivity and conduct.

Less than 5% of the youth studied experienced persistent symptoms. However, 48.6% in the child cohort and 44.1% in the adolescent cohort moved into one of the 3 psychopathology profiles (high psychopathology, externalizing, internalizing problems) at some point in development.

The spread of trajectories was more diverse in the child cohort, said Dr. Healy. “Children ebbed and flowed between the different profiles over time with a large proportion falling into one of the psychopathology categories and then switching between these profiles.” Switching was also evident in the adolescent cohort but to a lesser extent, he said.
 

Externalizing problems link to high psychopathology

Rates of remittance were higher among individuals in both cohorts for internalizing problems, compared with externalizing problems.

It’s possible that for some of these young people, internalizing problems are a reaction to environmental stressors such as bullying,” said Dr. Healy. “When that stress is relieved, the internalizing problems may dissipate.”

In a clinically relevant finding, children with externalizing problems (age 5, 129 [61.3%] and age 9, 95 [74.3%]) were more likely to present with new incidents of high psychopathology. This was also true in the adolescent group (age 13, 129 [91.1%] and age 17, 146 [89.9%]).

This suggests that a proportion of youth with externalizing problems have an escalating trajectory of psychopathology. “Thus, it may be possible to distinguish those with an escalating trajectory from a stable or remitting trajectory. The specific distinguishing factors require further investigation, but it has been observed before that some of those reporting externalizing problems in early life continue to have difficulties into later life,” noted Dr. Healy.

A combination of environmental or biological factors may explain this escalation, which could respond to early intervention, he said.

Overall, few children in the study transitioned directly from no psychopathology to high psychopathology.
 

Differences between boys, girls

In both cohorts, investigators noticed significant differences between the sexes.

Boys in childhood made up a larger proportion of the three psychopathology profiles. But by late adolescence, girls made up a larger proportion of the internalizing profile whereas boys made up a larger proportion of the externalizing profile. “These differences were in line with our expectations,” said Dr. Healy.

Trajectories also differed among boys and girls. In childhood, girls had a higher percentage of de-escalating trajectories relative to boys. “More girls than boys in the psychopathology profiles switched to a non or less severe profile. In adolescence, differences in trajectories were less obvious, with the exception that girls were more likely than boys to transition to internalizing problems from all of the other profiles at age 17,” said Dr. Healy.

Most young people who experience psychopathology will eventually see an improvement in symptoms, noted Dr. Healy. Next steps are to identify markers that distinguish individuals with persistent trajectories from remitting trajectories at the different phases of development, he said.
 

Study draws mixed reviews

Clinical psychiatrists not involved in the study had varying reactions to the results.

“This study is notable for its data-driven and powerful illustration of how childhood and adolescence are dynamic periods during which psychiatric symptoms can emerge and evolve,” said Sunny X. Tang, MD, a psychiatrist and an assistant professor at the Institute of Behavioral Science and the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York.

The clinical call for action is for person-centered mental health screening to be a routine part of pediatric and adolescent primary care or school-based services, noted Dr. Tang.

Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, did not think the study would have a significant impact on clinical practice.

He noted that Dr. Healy and coauthors found that some children stayed true to type, but many fluctuated between the four profile groups. The finding that fluctuation occurred more frequently in younger children is not surprising “and is consistent with what we know about the ‘moving targets’ that make diagnosing children so difficult,” said Dr. Nestadt.

“It would have been helpful to have identified clinical indicators of likely persistence in psychopathology, but the measure employed here did not allow that. It is also frustrating to not have any information on treatment, such that we cannot know whether the children who shifted to ‘no psychopathology’ did so because of treatment or spontaneously,” he added.

Victor M. Fornari, MD, MS, director of the Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at The Zucker Hillside Hospital and Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center, New York, said the study is an important contribution to understanding the development of psychopathology during childhood.

“Generally, it is felt that nearly one in five youth will meet criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder by the age of 18. It is well known that externalizing disorders like ADHD manifest earlier in childhood and that depression often manifests later in adolescence,” he said.

No disclosures were reported.

The neuropsychiatric ramifications of severe COVID-19 infection appear to be no different than for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI).

Results of a large study showed risks of new neuropsychiatric illness were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving either severe COVID-19 infection or other SARI, compared with the general population.
 

This suggests that disease severity, rather than pathogen, is the most relevant factor in new-onset neuropsychiatric illness, the investigators note.

The risk of new-onset neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection are “substantial, but similar to those after other severe respiratory infections,” study investigator Peter Watkinson, MD, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

Significant mental health burden

Research has shown a significant burden of neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection. However, it’s unclear how this risk compares to SARI.

To investigate, Dr. Watkinson and colleagues evaluated electronic health record data on more than 8.3 million adults, including 16,679 (0.02%) who survived a hospital admission for SARI and 32,525 (0.03%) who survived a hospital stay for COVID-19.

Compared with the remaining population, risks of new anxiety disorder, dementia, psychotic disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder diagnoses were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving hospitalization for either COVID-19 or SARI.

Compared with the wider population, survivors of severe SARI or COVID-19 were also at increased risk of starting treatment with antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, or antipsychotics.

When comparing survivors of SARI hospitalization to survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization, no significant differences were observed in the postdischarge rates of new-onset anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, or bipolar affective disorder.

The SARI and COVID groups also did not differ in terms of their postdischarge risks of antidepressant or hypnotic/anxiolytic use, but the COVID survivors had a 20% lower risk of starting an antipsychotic.

“In this cohort study, SARI were found to be associated with significant postacute neuropsychiatric morbidity, for which COVID-19 is not distinctly different,” Dr. Watkinson and colleagues write.

“These results may help refine our understanding of the post–severe COVID-19 phenotype and may inform post-discharge support for patients requiring hospital-based and intensive care for SARI regardless of causative pathogen,” they write.

 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in Milton Keynes, England, described the study as “impressive.” However, he pointed out that the study’s observational design is a limitation.

“One can never be absolutely certain about the interpretation of findings of an observational study. What the research can’t tell us is what caused the increased psychiatric risks for people hospitalized with COVID-19 or some other serious respiratory disease,” Dr. McConway said.

“It can’t tell us what might happen in the future, when, we all hope, many fewer are being hospitalized with COVID-19 than was the case in those first two waves, and the current backlog of provision of some health services has decreased,” he added.

“So we can’t just say that, in general, serious COVID-19 has much the same neuropsychiatric consequences as other very serious respiratory illness. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t,” Dr. McConway cautioned.

Max Taquet, PhD, with the University of Oxford, noted that the study is limited to hospitalized adult patients, leaving open the question of risk in nonhospitalized individuals – which is the overwhelming majority of patients with COVID-19 – or in children.

Whether the neuropsychiatric risks have remained the same since the emergence of the Omicron variant also remains “an open question since all patients in this study were diagnosed before July 2021,” Dr. Taquet said in statement.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre. Dr. Watkinson disclosed grants from the National Institute for Health Research and Sensyne Health outside the submitted work; and serving as chief medical officer for Sensyne Health prior to this work, as well as holding shares in the company. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the UK Science Media Centre and a member of its advisory committee. His comments were provided in his capacity as an independent professional statistician. Dr. Taquet has worked on similar studies trying to identify, quantify, and specify the neurological and psychiatric consequences of COVID-19.

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

The neuropsychiatric ramifications of severe COVID-19 infection appear to be no different than for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI).

Results of a large study showed risks of new neuropsychiatric illness were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving either severe COVID-19 infection or other SARI, compared with the general population.
 

This suggests that disease severity, rather than pathogen, is the most relevant factor in new-onset neuropsychiatric illness, the investigators note.

The risk of new-onset neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection are “substantial, but similar to those after other severe respiratory infections,” study investigator Peter Watkinson, MD, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

Significant mental health burden

Research has shown a significant burden of neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection. However, it’s unclear how this risk compares to SARI.

To investigate, Dr. Watkinson and colleagues evaluated electronic health record data on more than 8.3 million adults, including 16,679 (0.02%) who survived a hospital admission for SARI and 32,525 (0.03%) who survived a hospital stay for COVID-19.

Compared with the remaining population, risks of new anxiety disorder, dementia, psychotic disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder diagnoses were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving hospitalization for either COVID-19 or SARI.

Compared with the wider population, survivors of severe SARI or COVID-19 were also at increased risk of starting treatment with antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, or antipsychotics.

When comparing survivors of SARI hospitalization to survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization, no significant differences were observed in the postdischarge rates of new-onset anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, or bipolar affective disorder.

The SARI and COVID groups also did not differ in terms of their postdischarge risks of antidepressant or hypnotic/anxiolytic use, but the COVID survivors had a 20% lower risk of starting an antipsychotic.

“In this cohort study, SARI were found to be associated with significant postacute neuropsychiatric morbidity, for which COVID-19 is not distinctly different,” Dr. Watkinson and colleagues write.

“These results may help refine our understanding of the post–severe COVID-19 phenotype and may inform post-discharge support for patients requiring hospital-based and intensive care for SARI regardless of causative pathogen,” they write.

 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in Milton Keynes, England, described the study as “impressive.” However, he pointed out that the study’s observational design is a limitation.

“One can never be absolutely certain about the interpretation of findings of an observational study. What the research can’t tell us is what caused the increased psychiatric risks for people hospitalized with COVID-19 or some other serious respiratory disease,” Dr. McConway said.

“It can’t tell us what might happen in the future, when, we all hope, many fewer are being hospitalized with COVID-19 than was the case in those first two waves, and the current backlog of provision of some health services has decreased,” he added.

“So we can’t just say that, in general, serious COVID-19 has much the same neuropsychiatric consequences as other very serious respiratory illness. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t,” Dr. McConway cautioned.

Max Taquet, PhD, with the University of Oxford, noted that the study is limited to hospitalized adult patients, leaving open the question of risk in nonhospitalized individuals – which is the overwhelming majority of patients with COVID-19 – or in children.

Whether the neuropsychiatric risks have remained the same since the emergence of the Omicron variant also remains “an open question since all patients in this study were diagnosed before July 2021,” Dr. Taquet said in statement.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre. Dr. Watkinson disclosed grants from the National Institute for Health Research and Sensyne Health outside the submitted work; and serving as chief medical officer for Sensyne Health prior to this work, as well as holding shares in the company. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the UK Science Media Centre and a member of its advisory committee. His comments were provided in his capacity as an independent professional statistician. Dr. Taquet has worked on similar studies trying to identify, quantify, and specify the neurological and psychiatric consequences of COVID-19.

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

The neuropsychiatric ramifications of severe COVID-19 infection appear to be no different than for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI).

Results of a large study showed risks of new neuropsychiatric illness were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving either severe COVID-19 infection or other SARI, compared with the general population.
 

This suggests that disease severity, rather than pathogen, is the most relevant factor in new-onset neuropsychiatric illness, the investigators note.

The risk of new-onset neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection are “substantial, but similar to those after other severe respiratory infections,” study investigator Peter Watkinson, MD, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

Significant mental health burden

Research has shown a significant burden of neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection. However, it’s unclear how this risk compares to SARI.

To investigate, Dr. Watkinson and colleagues evaluated electronic health record data on more than 8.3 million adults, including 16,679 (0.02%) who survived a hospital admission for SARI and 32,525 (0.03%) who survived a hospital stay for COVID-19.

Compared with the remaining population, risks of new anxiety disorder, dementia, psychotic disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder diagnoses were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving hospitalization for either COVID-19 or SARI.

Compared with the wider population, survivors of severe SARI or COVID-19 were also at increased risk of starting treatment with antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, or antipsychotics.

When comparing survivors of SARI hospitalization to survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization, no significant differences were observed in the postdischarge rates of new-onset anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, or bipolar affective disorder.

The SARI and COVID groups also did not differ in terms of their postdischarge risks of antidepressant or hypnotic/anxiolytic use, but the COVID survivors had a 20% lower risk of starting an antipsychotic.

“In this cohort study, SARI were found to be associated with significant postacute neuropsychiatric morbidity, for which COVID-19 is not distinctly different,” Dr. Watkinson and colleagues write.

“These results may help refine our understanding of the post–severe COVID-19 phenotype and may inform post-discharge support for patients requiring hospital-based and intensive care for SARI regardless of causative pathogen,” they write.

 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in Milton Keynes, England, described the study as “impressive.” However, he pointed out that the study’s observational design is a limitation.

“One can never be absolutely certain about the interpretation of findings of an observational study. What the research can’t tell us is what caused the increased psychiatric risks for people hospitalized with COVID-19 or some other serious respiratory disease,” Dr. McConway said.

“It can’t tell us what might happen in the future, when, we all hope, many fewer are being hospitalized with COVID-19 than was the case in those first two waves, and the current backlog of provision of some health services has decreased,” he added.

“So we can’t just say that, in general, serious COVID-19 has much the same neuropsychiatric consequences as other very serious respiratory illness. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t,” Dr. McConway cautioned.

Max Taquet, PhD, with the University of Oxford, noted that the study is limited to hospitalized adult patients, leaving open the question of risk in nonhospitalized individuals – which is the overwhelming majority of patients with COVID-19 – or in children.

Whether the neuropsychiatric risks have remained the same since the emergence of the Omicron variant also remains “an open question since all patients in this study were diagnosed before July 2021,” Dr. Taquet said in statement.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre. Dr. Watkinson disclosed grants from the National Institute for Health Research and Sensyne Health outside the submitted work; and serving as chief medical officer for Sensyne Health prior to this work, as well as holding shares in the company. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the UK Science Media Centre and a member of its advisory committee. His comments were provided in his capacity as an independent professional statistician. Dr. Taquet has worked on similar studies trying to identify, quantify, and specify the neurological and psychiatric consequences of COVID-19.

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