User login
Three symptoms suggest higher risk for self-injury in cancer
, according to a Canadian study.
In a population-based, case-control study, each of these symptoms was associated with an increase of at least 60% in the risk for NFSI in the following 180 days, the investigators report.
“Clinicians should know that self-injury is a real problem after a cancer diagnosis,” lead investigator Julie Hallet, MD, an associate scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, told this news organization.
Self-injury “does not necessarily represent an attempted suicide,” she added. “While our data do not allow us to know what the intent was, we know from other work that the repercussions of distress in patients with cancer are much broader than suicide. Self-injury can be a means to cope with psychological difficulties for some patients, without intent for suicide.”
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
Nine common symptoms
The study included adults who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2007, and March 31, 2019, and had completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) evaluation within 36 months of their index cancer diagnosis. ESAS evaluates nine common cancer-associated symptoms, including pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, and shortness of breath, on a patient-reported scale of 0 (absence of symptom) to 10 (worst possible symptom).
The analysis included 406 patients who had visited an emergency department for an NFSI within 180 days of their ESAS evaluation, as well as 1,624 matched control patients with cancer who did not have an NFSI. Case patients and control patients were matched according to age at cancer diagnosis, sex, prior self-injury within 5 years of being diagnosed with cancer, and cancer type. Nonmatched covariates included psychiatric illness and therapy received before NFSI, comorbidity burden, material deprivation, and cancer stage.
Toward tailored intervention
A higher proportion of case patients than control patients reported moderate to severe scores for all nine ESAS symptoms. In an adjusted analysis, moderate to severe anxiety (odds ratio, 1.61), depression (OR, 1.66), and shortness of breath (OR, 1.65) were independently associated with higher odds of subsequent NFSI. Each 10-point increase in total ESAS score also was associated with increased risk (OR, 1.51).
“These findings are important to enhance the use of screening ESAS scores to better support patients,” say the authors. “Scores from ESAS assessments can be used to identify patients at higher risk of NFSI, indicating higher level of distress, and help direct tailored assessment and intervention.”
In prior work, Dr. Hallet’s group showed that NFSI occurs in 3 of every 1,000 patients with cancer. NFSI is more frequent among younger patients and those with a history of prior mental illness. “Identifying patients at risk in clinical practice requires you to inquire about a patient’s prior history, identify high symptom scores and ask about them, and trigger intervention pathways when risk is identified,” said Dr. Hallet.
“For example, a young patient with head and neck cancer and a prior history of mental illness who reports high scores for anxiety and drowsiness would be at high risk of self-injury,” she added. Such a patient should be referred to psycho-oncology, psychiatry, or social work. “To facilitate this, we are working on prognostic scores that can be integrated in clinical practice, such as an electronic medical record, to flag patients at risk,” said Dr. Hallet. “Future work will also need to identify the optimal care pathways for at-risk patients.”
Self-injury vs. suicidality
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Madeline Li, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist and clinician-scientist at Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, said that the findings are “underwhelming” because they tell us what is already known – that “NFSI is associated with distress, and cancer is a stressor.” It would have been more interesting to ask how to distinguish patients at risk for suicide from those at risk for self-harm without suicide, she added.
“The way these authors formulated NFSI included both self-harm intent and suicidal intent,” she explained. The researchers compared patients who were at risk for these two types of events with patients without NFSI. “When we see self-harm without suicidal intent in the emergency room, it’s mostly people making cries for help,” said Dr. Li. “These are people who cut their wrists or take small overdoses on purpose without the intent to die. It would have been more interesting to see if there are different risk factors for people who are just going to self-harm vs. those who are actually going to attempt suicide.”
The study’s identification of risk factors for NSFI is important because “it does tell us that when there’s anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath, we should pay attention to these patients and do something about it,” said Dr. Li. Still, research in cancer psychiatry needs to shift its focus from identifying and addressing existing risk factors to preventing them from developing, she added.
“We need to move earlier and provide emotional and mental health support to cancer patients to prevent them from becoming suicidal, rather than intervening when somebody already is,” Dr. Li concluded.
The study was funded by the Hanna Research Award from the division of surgical oncology at the Odette Cancer Centre–Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and by a Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Alternate Funding Plan Innovation grant. It was also supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hallet has received personal fees from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and AAA outside the submitted work. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a Canadian study.
In a population-based, case-control study, each of these symptoms was associated with an increase of at least 60% in the risk for NFSI in the following 180 days, the investigators report.
“Clinicians should know that self-injury is a real problem after a cancer diagnosis,” lead investigator Julie Hallet, MD, an associate scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, told this news organization.
Self-injury “does not necessarily represent an attempted suicide,” she added. “While our data do not allow us to know what the intent was, we know from other work that the repercussions of distress in patients with cancer are much broader than suicide. Self-injury can be a means to cope with psychological difficulties for some patients, without intent for suicide.”
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
Nine common symptoms
The study included adults who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2007, and March 31, 2019, and had completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) evaluation within 36 months of their index cancer diagnosis. ESAS evaluates nine common cancer-associated symptoms, including pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, and shortness of breath, on a patient-reported scale of 0 (absence of symptom) to 10 (worst possible symptom).
The analysis included 406 patients who had visited an emergency department for an NFSI within 180 days of their ESAS evaluation, as well as 1,624 matched control patients with cancer who did not have an NFSI. Case patients and control patients were matched according to age at cancer diagnosis, sex, prior self-injury within 5 years of being diagnosed with cancer, and cancer type. Nonmatched covariates included psychiatric illness and therapy received before NFSI, comorbidity burden, material deprivation, and cancer stage.
Toward tailored intervention
A higher proportion of case patients than control patients reported moderate to severe scores for all nine ESAS symptoms. In an adjusted analysis, moderate to severe anxiety (odds ratio, 1.61), depression (OR, 1.66), and shortness of breath (OR, 1.65) were independently associated with higher odds of subsequent NFSI. Each 10-point increase in total ESAS score also was associated with increased risk (OR, 1.51).
“These findings are important to enhance the use of screening ESAS scores to better support patients,” say the authors. “Scores from ESAS assessments can be used to identify patients at higher risk of NFSI, indicating higher level of distress, and help direct tailored assessment and intervention.”
In prior work, Dr. Hallet’s group showed that NFSI occurs in 3 of every 1,000 patients with cancer. NFSI is more frequent among younger patients and those with a history of prior mental illness. “Identifying patients at risk in clinical practice requires you to inquire about a patient’s prior history, identify high symptom scores and ask about them, and trigger intervention pathways when risk is identified,” said Dr. Hallet.
“For example, a young patient with head and neck cancer and a prior history of mental illness who reports high scores for anxiety and drowsiness would be at high risk of self-injury,” she added. Such a patient should be referred to psycho-oncology, psychiatry, or social work. “To facilitate this, we are working on prognostic scores that can be integrated in clinical practice, such as an electronic medical record, to flag patients at risk,” said Dr. Hallet. “Future work will also need to identify the optimal care pathways for at-risk patients.”
Self-injury vs. suicidality
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Madeline Li, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist and clinician-scientist at Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, said that the findings are “underwhelming” because they tell us what is already known – that “NFSI is associated with distress, and cancer is a stressor.” It would have been more interesting to ask how to distinguish patients at risk for suicide from those at risk for self-harm without suicide, she added.
“The way these authors formulated NFSI included both self-harm intent and suicidal intent,” she explained. The researchers compared patients who were at risk for these two types of events with patients without NFSI. “When we see self-harm without suicidal intent in the emergency room, it’s mostly people making cries for help,” said Dr. Li. “These are people who cut their wrists or take small overdoses on purpose without the intent to die. It would have been more interesting to see if there are different risk factors for people who are just going to self-harm vs. those who are actually going to attempt suicide.”
The study’s identification of risk factors for NSFI is important because “it does tell us that when there’s anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath, we should pay attention to these patients and do something about it,” said Dr. Li. Still, research in cancer psychiatry needs to shift its focus from identifying and addressing existing risk factors to preventing them from developing, she added.
“We need to move earlier and provide emotional and mental health support to cancer patients to prevent them from becoming suicidal, rather than intervening when somebody already is,” Dr. Li concluded.
The study was funded by the Hanna Research Award from the division of surgical oncology at the Odette Cancer Centre–Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and by a Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Alternate Funding Plan Innovation grant. It was also supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hallet has received personal fees from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and AAA outside the submitted work. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a Canadian study.
In a population-based, case-control study, each of these symptoms was associated with an increase of at least 60% in the risk for NFSI in the following 180 days, the investigators report.
“Clinicians should know that self-injury is a real problem after a cancer diagnosis,” lead investigator Julie Hallet, MD, an associate scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, told this news organization.
Self-injury “does not necessarily represent an attempted suicide,” she added. “While our data do not allow us to know what the intent was, we know from other work that the repercussions of distress in patients with cancer are much broader than suicide. Self-injury can be a means to cope with psychological difficulties for some patients, without intent for suicide.”
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
Nine common symptoms
The study included adults who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2007, and March 31, 2019, and had completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) evaluation within 36 months of their index cancer diagnosis. ESAS evaluates nine common cancer-associated symptoms, including pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, and shortness of breath, on a patient-reported scale of 0 (absence of symptom) to 10 (worst possible symptom).
The analysis included 406 patients who had visited an emergency department for an NFSI within 180 days of their ESAS evaluation, as well as 1,624 matched control patients with cancer who did not have an NFSI. Case patients and control patients were matched according to age at cancer diagnosis, sex, prior self-injury within 5 years of being diagnosed with cancer, and cancer type. Nonmatched covariates included psychiatric illness and therapy received before NFSI, comorbidity burden, material deprivation, and cancer stage.
Toward tailored intervention
A higher proportion of case patients than control patients reported moderate to severe scores for all nine ESAS symptoms. In an adjusted analysis, moderate to severe anxiety (odds ratio, 1.61), depression (OR, 1.66), and shortness of breath (OR, 1.65) were independently associated with higher odds of subsequent NFSI. Each 10-point increase in total ESAS score also was associated with increased risk (OR, 1.51).
“These findings are important to enhance the use of screening ESAS scores to better support patients,” say the authors. “Scores from ESAS assessments can be used to identify patients at higher risk of NFSI, indicating higher level of distress, and help direct tailored assessment and intervention.”
In prior work, Dr. Hallet’s group showed that NFSI occurs in 3 of every 1,000 patients with cancer. NFSI is more frequent among younger patients and those with a history of prior mental illness. “Identifying patients at risk in clinical practice requires you to inquire about a patient’s prior history, identify high symptom scores and ask about them, and trigger intervention pathways when risk is identified,” said Dr. Hallet.
“For example, a young patient with head and neck cancer and a prior history of mental illness who reports high scores for anxiety and drowsiness would be at high risk of self-injury,” she added. Such a patient should be referred to psycho-oncology, psychiatry, or social work. “To facilitate this, we are working on prognostic scores that can be integrated in clinical practice, such as an electronic medical record, to flag patients at risk,” said Dr. Hallet. “Future work will also need to identify the optimal care pathways for at-risk patients.”
Self-injury vs. suicidality
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Madeline Li, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist and clinician-scientist at Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, said that the findings are “underwhelming” because they tell us what is already known – that “NFSI is associated with distress, and cancer is a stressor.” It would have been more interesting to ask how to distinguish patients at risk for suicide from those at risk for self-harm without suicide, she added.
“The way these authors formulated NFSI included both self-harm intent and suicidal intent,” she explained. The researchers compared patients who were at risk for these two types of events with patients without NFSI. “When we see self-harm without suicidal intent in the emergency room, it’s mostly people making cries for help,” said Dr. Li. “These are people who cut their wrists or take small overdoses on purpose without the intent to die. It would have been more interesting to see if there are different risk factors for people who are just going to self-harm vs. those who are actually going to attempt suicide.”
The study’s identification of risk factors for NSFI is important because “it does tell us that when there’s anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath, we should pay attention to these patients and do something about it,” said Dr. Li. Still, research in cancer psychiatry needs to shift its focus from identifying and addressing existing risk factors to preventing them from developing, she added.
“We need to move earlier and provide emotional and mental health support to cancer patients to prevent them from becoming suicidal, rather than intervening when somebody already is,” Dr. Li concluded.
The study was funded by the Hanna Research Award from the division of surgical oncology at the Odette Cancer Centre–Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and by a Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Alternate Funding Plan Innovation grant. It was also supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hallet has received personal fees from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and AAA outside the submitted work. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Screening for anxiety in young children
On April 12, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released the draft of a recommendation statement titled Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents. Based on their observation that 7.8% of children and adolescents have a current anxiety disorder and their analysis of the magnitude of the net benefit, the Task Force plans on recommending that children ages 8-18 years be screened for the condition. However, the group could not find evidence to support screening for children 7 years and younger.
Over more than 4 decades of general pediatric practice, it became obvious to me that anxiety was driving a high percentage of my office visits. Most often in young children it was parental anxiety that was prompting the phone call or office visit. In older childhood and adolescence it was patient anxiety that began to play a larger role.
Over the last 2 decades the level of anxiety in all age groups has seemed to increase. How large a role the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks were playing in this phenomenon is unclear to me. However, I suspect they were significant. More recently the pandemic and the failure of both political parties to forge a working arrangement have fueled even more anxiety in many demographic segments. It may be safe to say that everyone is anxious to one degree or another.
Broad-based anxiety in the general population and the incidence of anxiety disorders severe enough to disrupt a child’s life are certainly two different kettles of fish. However, the factors that have raised the level of anxiety across all age groups certainly hasn’t made things any easier for the child who has inherited or developed an anxiety disorder.
Glancing at the 600-page evidence synthesis that accompanies the task force’s report it is clear that they have taken their challenge seriously. However, I wonder whether looking at the 7-and-under age group with a different lens might have resulted in the inclusion of younger children in their recommendation.
I understand that to support their recommendations the U.S. Preventive Services Task Forces must rely on data from peer-reviewed studies that have looked at quantifiable outcomes. However, I suspect the task force would agree that its recommendations shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from using our own observations and intuition when deciding whether to selectively screen our younger patients for anxiety disorders.
Although it may not generate a measurable data point, providing the parents of a 5-year-old whose troubling behavior is in part the result of an anxiety disorder is invaluable. Do we need to screen all 5-year-olds? The task force says probably not given the current state of our knowledge and I agree. But, the fact that almost 8% of the pediatric population carries the diagnosis and my anecdotal observations suggest that as pediatricians we should be learning more about anxiety disorders and their wide variety of presentations. Then we should selectively screen more of our patients. In fact, I suspect we might help our patients and ourselves by questioning more parents about their own mental health histories even before we have any inkling that their child has a problem. While the degree to which anxiety disorders are inheritable and the exact mechanism is far from clear, I think this history might be a valuable piece of information to learn as early as the prenatal get-acquainted visit. A simple question to a new or expecting parent about what worries them most about becoming a parent would be a good opener. Your reassurance that you expect parents to be worried and welcome hearing about their concerns should be a step in building a strong foundation for a family-provider relationship.
Anxiety happens and unfortunately so do anxiety disorders. We need to be doing a better job of acknowledging and responding to these two realities.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
*This column was updated on 5/4/2022.
On April 12, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released the draft of a recommendation statement titled Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents. Based on their observation that 7.8% of children and adolescents have a current anxiety disorder and their analysis of the magnitude of the net benefit, the Task Force plans on recommending that children ages 8-18 years be screened for the condition. However, the group could not find evidence to support screening for children 7 years and younger.
Over more than 4 decades of general pediatric practice, it became obvious to me that anxiety was driving a high percentage of my office visits. Most often in young children it was parental anxiety that was prompting the phone call or office visit. In older childhood and adolescence it was patient anxiety that began to play a larger role.
Over the last 2 decades the level of anxiety in all age groups has seemed to increase. How large a role the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks were playing in this phenomenon is unclear to me. However, I suspect they were significant. More recently the pandemic and the failure of both political parties to forge a working arrangement have fueled even more anxiety in many demographic segments. It may be safe to say that everyone is anxious to one degree or another.
Broad-based anxiety in the general population and the incidence of anxiety disorders severe enough to disrupt a child’s life are certainly two different kettles of fish. However, the factors that have raised the level of anxiety across all age groups certainly hasn’t made things any easier for the child who has inherited or developed an anxiety disorder.
Glancing at the 600-page evidence synthesis that accompanies the task force’s report it is clear that they have taken their challenge seriously. However, I wonder whether looking at the 7-and-under age group with a different lens might have resulted in the inclusion of younger children in their recommendation.
I understand that to support their recommendations the U.S. Preventive Services Task Forces must rely on data from peer-reviewed studies that have looked at quantifiable outcomes. However, I suspect the task force would agree that its recommendations shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from using our own observations and intuition when deciding whether to selectively screen our younger patients for anxiety disorders.
Although it may not generate a measurable data point, providing the parents of a 5-year-old whose troubling behavior is in part the result of an anxiety disorder is invaluable. Do we need to screen all 5-year-olds? The task force says probably not given the current state of our knowledge and I agree. But, the fact that almost 8% of the pediatric population carries the diagnosis and my anecdotal observations suggest that as pediatricians we should be learning more about anxiety disorders and their wide variety of presentations. Then we should selectively screen more of our patients. In fact, I suspect we might help our patients and ourselves by questioning more parents about their own mental health histories even before we have any inkling that their child has a problem. While the degree to which anxiety disorders are inheritable and the exact mechanism is far from clear, I think this history might be a valuable piece of information to learn as early as the prenatal get-acquainted visit. A simple question to a new or expecting parent about what worries them most about becoming a parent would be a good opener. Your reassurance that you expect parents to be worried and welcome hearing about their concerns should be a step in building a strong foundation for a family-provider relationship.
Anxiety happens and unfortunately so do anxiety disorders. We need to be doing a better job of acknowledging and responding to these two realities.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
*This column was updated on 5/4/2022.
On April 12, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released the draft of a recommendation statement titled Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents. Based on their observation that 7.8% of children and adolescents have a current anxiety disorder and their analysis of the magnitude of the net benefit, the Task Force plans on recommending that children ages 8-18 years be screened for the condition. However, the group could not find evidence to support screening for children 7 years and younger.
Over more than 4 decades of general pediatric practice, it became obvious to me that anxiety was driving a high percentage of my office visits. Most often in young children it was parental anxiety that was prompting the phone call or office visit. In older childhood and adolescence it was patient anxiety that began to play a larger role.
Over the last 2 decades the level of anxiety in all age groups has seemed to increase. How large a role the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks were playing in this phenomenon is unclear to me. However, I suspect they were significant. More recently the pandemic and the failure of both political parties to forge a working arrangement have fueled even more anxiety in many demographic segments. It may be safe to say that everyone is anxious to one degree or another.
Broad-based anxiety in the general population and the incidence of anxiety disorders severe enough to disrupt a child’s life are certainly two different kettles of fish. However, the factors that have raised the level of anxiety across all age groups certainly hasn’t made things any easier for the child who has inherited or developed an anxiety disorder.
Glancing at the 600-page evidence synthesis that accompanies the task force’s report it is clear that they have taken their challenge seriously. However, I wonder whether looking at the 7-and-under age group with a different lens might have resulted in the inclusion of younger children in their recommendation.
I understand that to support their recommendations the U.S. Preventive Services Task Forces must rely on data from peer-reviewed studies that have looked at quantifiable outcomes. However, I suspect the task force would agree that its recommendations shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from using our own observations and intuition when deciding whether to selectively screen our younger patients for anxiety disorders.
Although it may not generate a measurable data point, providing the parents of a 5-year-old whose troubling behavior is in part the result of an anxiety disorder is invaluable. Do we need to screen all 5-year-olds? The task force says probably not given the current state of our knowledge and I agree. But, the fact that almost 8% of the pediatric population carries the diagnosis and my anecdotal observations suggest that as pediatricians we should be learning more about anxiety disorders and their wide variety of presentations. Then we should selectively screen more of our patients. In fact, I suspect we might help our patients and ourselves by questioning more parents about their own mental health histories even before we have any inkling that their child has a problem. While the degree to which anxiety disorders are inheritable and the exact mechanism is far from clear, I think this history might be a valuable piece of information to learn as early as the prenatal get-acquainted visit. A simple question to a new or expecting parent about what worries them most about becoming a parent would be a good opener. Your reassurance that you expect parents to be worried and welcome hearing about their concerns should be a step in building a strong foundation for a family-provider relationship.
Anxiety happens and unfortunately so do anxiety disorders. We need to be doing a better job of acknowledging and responding to these two realities.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
*This column was updated on 5/4/2022.
Hospital readmission remains common for teens with nonfatal drug overdose
Approximately 1 in 5 adolescents hospitalized for nonfatal drug overdoses were readmitted within 6 months, based on data from more than 12,000 individuals.
Previous studies suggest that many adolescents fail to receive timely treatment for addiction after a nonfatal overdose, but the rates of hospital readmission in this population have not been examined, according to Julie Gaither, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
In a study presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, Dr. Gaither and her colleague, John M. Leventhal, MD, also of Yale University, used data from the 2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database to examine incidence and recurrent hospitalizations for nonfatal drug overdoses in adolescents. The study population included 12,952 patients aged 11-21 years who were admitted to a hospital after a nonfatal drug overdose in 2016. Of these, 15% were younger than 15 years, and 52.1% were females.
Overall, 76.2% of the overdoses involved opioids; 77.9% involved a prescription opioid, 15.3% involved heroin, and 7.9% involved fentanyl.
Across all drug overdoses, the majority (86.5%) were attributed to accidental intent and 11.8% were attributed to self-harm. Notably, females were nearly four times more likely than males to attempt suicide (odds ratio, 3.57). After the initial hospitalization, 79.3% of the patients were discharged home, and 11.5% went to a short-term care facility.
The 6-month hospital readmission rate was 21.4%. Of the patients readmitted for any cause, 18.2% of readmissions were for recurrent overdoses, and 92.1% of these were attributed to opioids.
The median cost of the initial hospital admission was $23,705 (ranging from $11,902 to $54,682) and the median cost of the first readmission was $25,416 (ranging from $13,905 to $48,810). In 42.1% of all hospitalizations, Medicaid was the primary payer.
The study findings were limited by the relatively high number of Medicaid patients, which may limit generalizability, but is strengthened by the large sample size.
The findings highlight not only the need for prevention efforts to limit opioid use among adolescents, but also “speak to the need for timely evidenced-based addiction treatment and appropriate follow-up care for teens following hospitalization for a nonfatal drug overdose,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.
Potential for postpandemic surge in drug use
Interestingly, some recent research has shown a decline in teens’ substance use during the pandemic, Kelly Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.
“However, as the world begins ‘opening up’ again, I suspect rates of drug use will rise – especially with the significant burden of mental health issues adolescents have struggled with during the last few years,” said Dr. Curran, who was not involved with the current study.
“Sadly, I am not surprised by this study’s findings. Too often, teens with substance abuse issues are not connected to effective, evidenced-based treatment, and for those who are, the wait list can be long,” she said.
“Teens who are misusing drugs – either to get high or to attempt suicide – who are admitted for nonfatal overdose have a high rate of readmission for recurrent drug overdose,” Dr. Curran said. “This high rate of readmission has serious social and financial implications,” she added. “This study is part of a growing body of literature that supports the importance of getting adolescents into effective, evidence-based substance abuse treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment in opioid abuse. However, we also should be advocating for improved funding for and access to these treatments for all individuals.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gaither had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
Approximately 1 in 5 adolescents hospitalized for nonfatal drug overdoses were readmitted within 6 months, based on data from more than 12,000 individuals.
Previous studies suggest that many adolescents fail to receive timely treatment for addiction after a nonfatal overdose, but the rates of hospital readmission in this population have not been examined, according to Julie Gaither, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
In a study presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, Dr. Gaither and her colleague, John M. Leventhal, MD, also of Yale University, used data from the 2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database to examine incidence and recurrent hospitalizations for nonfatal drug overdoses in adolescents. The study population included 12,952 patients aged 11-21 years who were admitted to a hospital after a nonfatal drug overdose in 2016. Of these, 15% were younger than 15 years, and 52.1% were females.
Overall, 76.2% of the overdoses involved opioids; 77.9% involved a prescription opioid, 15.3% involved heroin, and 7.9% involved fentanyl.
Across all drug overdoses, the majority (86.5%) were attributed to accidental intent and 11.8% were attributed to self-harm. Notably, females were nearly four times more likely than males to attempt suicide (odds ratio, 3.57). After the initial hospitalization, 79.3% of the patients were discharged home, and 11.5% went to a short-term care facility.
The 6-month hospital readmission rate was 21.4%. Of the patients readmitted for any cause, 18.2% of readmissions were for recurrent overdoses, and 92.1% of these were attributed to opioids.
The median cost of the initial hospital admission was $23,705 (ranging from $11,902 to $54,682) and the median cost of the first readmission was $25,416 (ranging from $13,905 to $48,810). In 42.1% of all hospitalizations, Medicaid was the primary payer.
The study findings were limited by the relatively high number of Medicaid patients, which may limit generalizability, but is strengthened by the large sample size.
The findings highlight not only the need for prevention efforts to limit opioid use among adolescents, but also “speak to the need for timely evidenced-based addiction treatment and appropriate follow-up care for teens following hospitalization for a nonfatal drug overdose,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.
Potential for postpandemic surge in drug use
Interestingly, some recent research has shown a decline in teens’ substance use during the pandemic, Kelly Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.
“However, as the world begins ‘opening up’ again, I suspect rates of drug use will rise – especially with the significant burden of mental health issues adolescents have struggled with during the last few years,” said Dr. Curran, who was not involved with the current study.
“Sadly, I am not surprised by this study’s findings. Too often, teens with substance abuse issues are not connected to effective, evidenced-based treatment, and for those who are, the wait list can be long,” she said.
“Teens who are misusing drugs – either to get high or to attempt suicide – who are admitted for nonfatal overdose have a high rate of readmission for recurrent drug overdose,” Dr. Curran said. “This high rate of readmission has serious social and financial implications,” she added. “This study is part of a growing body of literature that supports the importance of getting adolescents into effective, evidence-based substance abuse treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment in opioid abuse. However, we also should be advocating for improved funding for and access to these treatments for all individuals.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gaither had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
Approximately 1 in 5 adolescents hospitalized for nonfatal drug overdoses were readmitted within 6 months, based on data from more than 12,000 individuals.
Previous studies suggest that many adolescents fail to receive timely treatment for addiction after a nonfatal overdose, but the rates of hospital readmission in this population have not been examined, according to Julie Gaither, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
In a study presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, Dr. Gaither and her colleague, John M. Leventhal, MD, also of Yale University, used data from the 2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database to examine incidence and recurrent hospitalizations for nonfatal drug overdoses in adolescents. The study population included 12,952 patients aged 11-21 years who were admitted to a hospital after a nonfatal drug overdose in 2016. Of these, 15% were younger than 15 years, and 52.1% were females.
Overall, 76.2% of the overdoses involved opioids; 77.9% involved a prescription opioid, 15.3% involved heroin, and 7.9% involved fentanyl.
Across all drug overdoses, the majority (86.5%) were attributed to accidental intent and 11.8% were attributed to self-harm. Notably, females were nearly four times more likely than males to attempt suicide (odds ratio, 3.57). After the initial hospitalization, 79.3% of the patients were discharged home, and 11.5% went to a short-term care facility.
The 6-month hospital readmission rate was 21.4%. Of the patients readmitted for any cause, 18.2% of readmissions were for recurrent overdoses, and 92.1% of these were attributed to opioids.
The median cost of the initial hospital admission was $23,705 (ranging from $11,902 to $54,682) and the median cost of the first readmission was $25,416 (ranging from $13,905 to $48,810). In 42.1% of all hospitalizations, Medicaid was the primary payer.
The study findings were limited by the relatively high number of Medicaid patients, which may limit generalizability, but is strengthened by the large sample size.
The findings highlight not only the need for prevention efforts to limit opioid use among adolescents, but also “speak to the need for timely evidenced-based addiction treatment and appropriate follow-up care for teens following hospitalization for a nonfatal drug overdose,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.
Potential for postpandemic surge in drug use
Interestingly, some recent research has shown a decline in teens’ substance use during the pandemic, Kelly Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.
“However, as the world begins ‘opening up’ again, I suspect rates of drug use will rise – especially with the significant burden of mental health issues adolescents have struggled with during the last few years,” said Dr. Curran, who was not involved with the current study.
“Sadly, I am not surprised by this study’s findings. Too often, teens with substance abuse issues are not connected to effective, evidenced-based treatment, and for those who are, the wait list can be long,” she said.
“Teens who are misusing drugs – either to get high or to attempt suicide – who are admitted for nonfatal overdose have a high rate of readmission for recurrent drug overdose,” Dr. Curran said. “This high rate of readmission has serious social and financial implications,” she added. “This study is part of a growing body of literature that supports the importance of getting adolescents into effective, evidence-based substance abuse treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment in opioid abuse. However, we also should be advocating for improved funding for and access to these treatments for all individuals.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gaither had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
FROM PAS 2022
Virtual reality therapy promising for agoraphobia
The cognitive-behavioral therapy–based treatment was particularly effective for patients with the highest level of avoidance of everyday situations.
“Virtual reality is an inherently therapeutic medium which could be extremely useful in mental health services,” study investigator Daniel Freeman, PhD, DClinPsy, professor of clinical psychology, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization. “This intervention is coming; the question really is when.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Real-world feel
Immersive VR involves interactive three-dimensional computer-generated environments that produce the sensation of being in the real world.
For patients with psychosis, dealing with the real world can be an anxious experience, particularly if they have verbal or auditory hallucinations.
Some may develop agoraphobia and start to avoid places or situations. A virtual environment allows patients to practice dealing with situations that make them anxious or uncomfortable and to learn to reengage in everyday situations.
The study included 346 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or a related disorder. The mean age of the patients was 37.2 years (67% were men, 85% were White). Most were single and unemployed. All were receiving treatment for psychosis and had difficulty going out because of anxiety.
The researchers randomly assigned 174 participants to an automated VR cognitive therapy intervention (gameChange) plus usual care and 172 to usual care alone. Trial assessors were blinded to group allocation.
The gameChange intervention was delivered in six sessions that were conducted over a 6-week period. Each session involved 30 minutes of VR.
A session begins when participants enter the virtual therapist’s office. They are met by a coach who guides them through the therapy. They can choose from among six VR social situations. These include a cafe, a general practice waiting room, a pub, a bus, opening the front door of their home onto the street, or entering a small local shop.
Each scenario has five levels of difficulty that are based on the number and proximity of people in the social situation and the degree of social interaction. Users can work their way through these various levels.
The virtual sessions took place in patients’ homes in about 50% of cases; the remainder were conducted in the clinic. A mental health worker was in the room during the therapy.
Between virtual sessions, participants were encouraged to apply what they learned in the real world, for example, by spending time in a pub.
Usual care typically included regular visits from a community mental health worker and occasional outpatient appointments with a psychiatrist.
Widely applicable?
The primary outcome was the eight-item Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale (O-AS) questionnaire. This scale assesses distress and avoidance related to performing increasingly difficult everyday tasks.
The researchers assessed patients at baseline, at the conclusion of the 6-week treatment, and at 26 weeks.
Compared with the group that received usual care alone, the VR therapy group demonstrated a significant reduction in both agoraphobic avoidance (O-AS adjusted mean difference, -0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.88 to –0.06; Cohen’s d, –0.18; P = .026) and distress (–4.33; 95% CI, –7.78 to –0.87; Cohen’s d, –0.26; P = .014) at 6 weeks.
This translates to being able to do about 1.5 more activities on the O-AS, such as going to a shopping center alone, said Dr. Freeman.
Further analyses showed that VR therapy was especially effective for patients with severe agoraphobia. On average, these patients could complete two more O-AS activities at 26 weeks, said Dr. Freeman.
The authors believe the intervention worked by reducing defense behaviors, such as avoiding eye contact and fearful thoughts.
There was no significant difference in occurrence of adverse events between the study groups. These events, which were mild, transient, and did not affect the outcome, included side effects such as claustrophobia when using headsets.
The intervention would likely work for patients with agoraphobia who do not have psychosis, said Dr. Freeman. “Agoraphobia is often the final common pathway in lots of mental health conditions.”
Automated VR not only addresses the problem of patients being too afraid to leave home for in-person treatment but may also help address the shortage of trained mental health care providers.
The intervention is available at pilot implementation sites in the United Kingdom and a few sites in the United States, he said.
‘Cool, interesting’
Commenting on the research, Arash Javanbakht, MD, associate professor (clinical scholar), Wayne State University, Detroit, described the study as “cool and interesting.”
However, he said, the findings were not surprising, because exposure therapy has proved effective in treating phobias. Because of the significant lack of access to exposure therapy providers, “the more mechanized, the more automated therapies that can be easily used, the better,” he said.
He noted the VR therapy did not require a high level of training; the study used peer support staff who sat next to those using the technology.
He also liked the fact that the intervention “focused on things that in reality impair a person’s life,” for example, not being able to go to the grocery store.
However, he wondered why the investigators studied VR for patients with psychosis and agoraphobia and not for those with just agoraphobia.
In addition, he noted that the treatment’s efficacy was partly due to having someone next to the participants offering support, which the control group didn’t have.
Dr. Javanbakht has researched augmented therapy (AR) for delivering exposure therapy. This technology, which mixes virtually created objects with reality and allows users to move around their real environment, is newer and more advanced than VR but is more complicated, he said.
He explained that AR is more appropriate for delivering exposure therapy in certain situations.
“The basis of exposure therapy is ‘extinction learning’ – exposing a person to a fear cue over and over again until the fear response is extinguished,” and extinction learning is “context dependent,” said Dr. Javanbakht.
“VR is good when you need to create the whole context and environment, and AR is good when you need to focus on specific objects or cues in the environment,” for example, spiders or snakes, he said.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Freeman is a founder and a non-executive director of Oxford VR, which will commercialize the therapy. He holds equity in and receives personal payments from Oxford VR; holds a contract for his university team to advise Oxford VR on treatment development; and reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research, the Medical Research Council, and the International Foundation. Dr. Javanbakht has a patent for an AR exposure therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The cognitive-behavioral therapy–based treatment was particularly effective for patients with the highest level of avoidance of everyday situations.
“Virtual reality is an inherently therapeutic medium which could be extremely useful in mental health services,” study investigator Daniel Freeman, PhD, DClinPsy, professor of clinical psychology, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization. “This intervention is coming; the question really is when.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Real-world feel
Immersive VR involves interactive three-dimensional computer-generated environments that produce the sensation of being in the real world.
For patients with psychosis, dealing with the real world can be an anxious experience, particularly if they have verbal or auditory hallucinations.
Some may develop agoraphobia and start to avoid places or situations. A virtual environment allows patients to practice dealing with situations that make them anxious or uncomfortable and to learn to reengage in everyday situations.
The study included 346 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or a related disorder. The mean age of the patients was 37.2 years (67% were men, 85% were White). Most were single and unemployed. All were receiving treatment for psychosis and had difficulty going out because of anxiety.
The researchers randomly assigned 174 participants to an automated VR cognitive therapy intervention (gameChange) plus usual care and 172 to usual care alone. Trial assessors were blinded to group allocation.
The gameChange intervention was delivered in six sessions that were conducted over a 6-week period. Each session involved 30 minutes of VR.
A session begins when participants enter the virtual therapist’s office. They are met by a coach who guides them through the therapy. They can choose from among six VR social situations. These include a cafe, a general practice waiting room, a pub, a bus, opening the front door of their home onto the street, or entering a small local shop.
Each scenario has five levels of difficulty that are based on the number and proximity of people in the social situation and the degree of social interaction. Users can work their way through these various levels.
The virtual sessions took place in patients’ homes in about 50% of cases; the remainder were conducted in the clinic. A mental health worker was in the room during the therapy.
Between virtual sessions, participants were encouraged to apply what they learned in the real world, for example, by spending time in a pub.
Usual care typically included regular visits from a community mental health worker and occasional outpatient appointments with a psychiatrist.
Widely applicable?
The primary outcome was the eight-item Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale (O-AS) questionnaire. This scale assesses distress and avoidance related to performing increasingly difficult everyday tasks.
The researchers assessed patients at baseline, at the conclusion of the 6-week treatment, and at 26 weeks.
Compared with the group that received usual care alone, the VR therapy group demonstrated a significant reduction in both agoraphobic avoidance (O-AS adjusted mean difference, -0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.88 to –0.06; Cohen’s d, –0.18; P = .026) and distress (–4.33; 95% CI, –7.78 to –0.87; Cohen’s d, –0.26; P = .014) at 6 weeks.
This translates to being able to do about 1.5 more activities on the O-AS, such as going to a shopping center alone, said Dr. Freeman.
Further analyses showed that VR therapy was especially effective for patients with severe agoraphobia. On average, these patients could complete two more O-AS activities at 26 weeks, said Dr. Freeman.
The authors believe the intervention worked by reducing defense behaviors, such as avoiding eye contact and fearful thoughts.
There was no significant difference in occurrence of adverse events between the study groups. These events, which were mild, transient, and did not affect the outcome, included side effects such as claustrophobia when using headsets.
The intervention would likely work for patients with agoraphobia who do not have psychosis, said Dr. Freeman. “Agoraphobia is often the final common pathway in lots of mental health conditions.”
Automated VR not only addresses the problem of patients being too afraid to leave home for in-person treatment but may also help address the shortage of trained mental health care providers.
The intervention is available at pilot implementation sites in the United Kingdom and a few sites in the United States, he said.
‘Cool, interesting’
Commenting on the research, Arash Javanbakht, MD, associate professor (clinical scholar), Wayne State University, Detroit, described the study as “cool and interesting.”
However, he said, the findings were not surprising, because exposure therapy has proved effective in treating phobias. Because of the significant lack of access to exposure therapy providers, “the more mechanized, the more automated therapies that can be easily used, the better,” he said.
He noted the VR therapy did not require a high level of training; the study used peer support staff who sat next to those using the technology.
He also liked the fact that the intervention “focused on things that in reality impair a person’s life,” for example, not being able to go to the grocery store.
However, he wondered why the investigators studied VR for patients with psychosis and agoraphobia and not for those with just agoraphobia.
In addition, he noted that the treatment’s efficacy was partly due to having someone next to the participants offering support, which the control group didn’t have.
Dr. Javanbakht has researched augmented therapy (AR) for delivering exposure therapy. This technology, which mixes virtually created objects with reality and allows users to move around their real environment, is newer and more advanced than VR but is more complicated, he said.
He explained that AR is more appropriate for delivering exposure therapy in certain situations.
“The basis of exposure therapy is ‘extinction learning’ – exposing a person to a fear cue over and over again until the fear response is extinguished,” and extinction learning is “context dependent,” said Dr. Javanbakht.
“VR is good when you need to create the whole context and environment, and AR is good when you need to focus on specific objects or cues in the environment,” for example, spiders or snakes, he said.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Freeman is a founder and a non-executive director of Oxford VR, which will commercialize the therapy. He holds equity in and receives personal payments from Oxford VR; holds a contract for his university team to advise Oxford VR on treatment development; and reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research, the Medical Research Council, and the International Foundation. Dr. Javanbakht has a patent for an AR exposure therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The cognitive-behavioral therapy–based treatment was particularly effective for patients with the highest level of avoidance of everyday situations.
“Virtual reality is an inherently therapeutic medium which could be extremely useful in mental health services,” study investigator Daniel Freeman, PhD, DClinPsy, professor of clinical psychology, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization. “This intervention is coming; the question really is when.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Real-world feel
Immersive VR involves interactive three-dimensional computer-generated environments that produce the sensation of being in the real world.
For patients with psychosis, dealing with the real world can be an anxious experience, particularly if they have verbal or auditory hallucinations.
Some may develop agoraphobia and start to avoid places or situations. A virtual environment allows patients to practice dealing with situations that make them anxious or uncomfortable and to learn to reengage in everyday situations.
The study included 346 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or a related disorder. The mean age of the patients was 37.2 years (67% were men, 85% were White). Most were single and unemployed. All were receiving treatment for psychosis and had difficulty going out because of anxiety.
The researchers randomly assigned 174 participants to an automated VR cognitive therapy intervention (gameChange) plus usual care and 172 to usual care alone. Trial assessors were blinded to group allocation.
The gameChange intervention was delivered in six sessions that were conducted over a 6-week period. Each session involved 30 minutes of VR.
A session begins when participants enter the virtual therapist’s office. They are met by a coach who guides them through the therapy. They can choose from among six VR social situations. These include a cafe, a general practice waiting room, a pub, a bus, opening the front door of their home onto the street, or entering a small local shop.
Each scenario has five levels of difficulty that are based on the number and proximity of people in the social situation and the degree of social interaction. Users can work their way through these various levels.
The virtual sessions took place in patients’ homes in about 50% of cases; the remainder were conducted in the clinic. A mental health worker was in the room during the therapy.
Between virtual sessions, participants were encouraged to apply what they learned in the real world, for example, by spending time in a pub.
Usual care typically included regular visits from a community mental health worker and occasional outpatient appointments with a psychiatrist.
Widely applicable?
The primary outcome was the eight-item Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale (O-AS) questionnaire. This scale assesses distress and avoidance related to performing increasingly difficult everyday tasks.
The researchers assessed patients at baseline, at the conclusion of the 6-week treatment, and at 26 weeks.
Compared with the group that received usual care alone, the VR therapy group demonstrated a significant reduction in both agoraphobic avoidance (O-AS adjusted mean difference, -0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.88 to –0.06; Cohen’s d, –0.18; P = .026) and distress (–4.33; 95% CI, –7.78 to –0.87; Cohen’s d, –0.26; P = .014) at 6 weeks.
This translates to being able to do about 1.5 more activities on the O-AS, such as going to a shopping center alone, said Dr. Freeman.
Further analyses showed that VR therapy was especially effective for patients with severe agoraphobia. On average, these patients could complete two more O-AS activities at 26 weeks, said Dr. Freeman.
The authors believe the intervention worked by reducing defense behaviors, such as avoiding eye contact and fearful thoughts.
There was no significant difference in occurrence of adverse events between the study groups. These events, which were mild, transient, and did not affect the outcome, included side effects such as claustrophobia when using headsets.
The intervention would likely work for patients with agoraphobia who do not have psychosis, said Dr. Freeman. “Agoraphobia is often the final common pathway in lots of mental health conditions.”
Automated VR not only addresses the problem of patients being too afraid to leave home for in-person treatment but may also help address the shortage of trained mental health care providers.
The intervention is available at pilot implementation sites in the United Kingdom and a few sites in the United States, he said.
‘Cool, interesting’
Commenting on the research, Arash Javanbakht, MD, associate professor (clinical scholar), Wayne State University, Detroit, described the study as “cool and interesting.”
However, he said, the findings were not surprising, because exposure therapy has proved effective in treating phobias. Because of the significant lack of access to exposure therapy providers, “the more mechanized, the more automated therapies that can be easily used, the better,” he said.
He noted the VR therapy did not require a high level of training; the study used peer support staff who sat next to those using the technology.
He also liked the fact that the intervention “focused on things that in reality impair a person’s life,” for example, not being able to go to the grocery store.
However, he wondered why the investigators studied VR for patients with psychosis and agoraphobia and not for those with just agoraphobia.
In addition, he noted that the treatment’s efficacy was partly due to having someone next to the participants offering support, which the control group didn’t have.
Dr. Javanbakht has researched augmented therapy (AR) for delivering exposure therapy. This technology, which mixes virtually created objects with reality and allows users to move around their real environment, is newer and more advanced than VR but is more complicated, he said.
He explained that AR is more appropriate for delivering exposure therapy in certain situations.
“The basis of exposure therapy is ‘extinction learning’ – exposing a person to a fear cue over and over again until the fear response is extinguished,” and extinction learning is “context dependent,” said Dr. Javanbakht.
“VR is good when you need to create the whole context and environment, and AR is good when you need to focus on specific objects or cues in the environment,” for example, spiders or snakes, he said.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Freeman is a founder and a non-executive director of Oxford VR, which will commercialize the therapy. He holds equity in and receives personal payments from Oxford VR; holds a contract for his university team to advise Oxford VR on treatment development; and reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research, the Medical Research Council, and the International Foundation. Dr. Javanbakht has a patent for an AR exposure therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antidepressant study yields controversial findings
Researchers who conducted the study admit this finding was unexpected, and outside experts say no firm conclusions can be drawn from the research.
“Of course we were surprised by the results,” first author Omar Almohammed, PharmD, PhD, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told this news organization.
“We were expecting to see some positive impact with the use of antidepressant medications on the HRQoL measures when we compared these patients to patients that did not use antidepressant medications,” Dr. Almohammed said.
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
Controversial impact on quality of life
Depression is known to harm HRQoL. Despite evidence that antidepressants improve depressed mood, their effect on patients’ overall well-being and HRQoL remains controversial.
The researchers examined the effect of antidepressants on HRQoL in adults with depression using 11 years of data from the U.S. Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), a large longitudinal survey that tracks health service use in the United States. HRQoL was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).
On average, about 17.5 million adults were diagnosed with depression each year during the study period (2005-2016). More than half (57.6%) of these patients were treated with antidepressants.
Patients with depression had an average age of 48.3 years. Women made up more than two-thirds of the total sample (68%), and more women than men received antidepressants (61% vs. 52%).
Compared with no antidepressant use, antidepressant use was associated with some improvement on the mental, but not physical, component of the SF-12, the researchers report.
However, difference-in-differences (D-I-D) univariate analysis showed no significant difference between adults using and not using antidepressants in the SF-12 physical (-0.35 vs. -0.34; P = .9,595) or mental component (1.28 vs. 1.13; P = .6,405).
“The multivariate D-I-D analyses ensured the robustness of these results,” the researchers note.
The change in HRQoL observed in patients using antidepressants was not significantly different from that seen among peers not using these drugs, the researchers report.
“We are not saying that antidepressant medications are not helpful at all; HRQoL is only one of many measures intended to assess health outcomes,” Dr. Almohammed told this news organization.
“Based on our research design and data, we can only say that patients who used antidepressant medications did not experience better change in terms of HRQoL compared to patients who did not use antidepressant medications,” he said.
“These patients may have had some improvement on other clinical outcome measures, but that clinical improvement did not have a significant positive impact on HRQoL,” he noted.
“We still recommend that patients continue using their antidepressant medications, but they may want to ask their doctors to provide them with other nonpharmacologic interventions as this may have additional impact on their HRQoL,” Dr. Almohammed said.
Further research is needed to address a “gap in knowledge” about the impact of nondrug interventions – alone or in combination with antidepressant medications – on patients’ HRQoL, Dr. Almohammed added.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center.
Gemma Lewis, PhD, with University College London (UCL), noted that “clinical trials with experimental designs have found that antidepressants improve mental health-related quality of life.”
“In this study, the people who received antidepressants had worse quality of life, and are likely to have been more severely depressed, than those who did not. This type of bias is difficult to eliminate in a naturalistic study like this, which does not involve an experimental design,” Dr. Lewis commented.
Eduard Vieta, PhD, with University of Barcelona, noted the “inability to control for severity of depression between the two different groups is a crucial flaw, and therefore, there is little we can learn from this data.”
Echoing Dr. Vieta, David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with UCL Genetics Institute, said, “One might well assume that the people who were taking antidepressants had been more severely depressed than those who were not.”
“From this point of view, one could argue that it seems that the antidepressants were effective and that with their use people who had presented with more severe depression did not have markedly reduced quality of life,” Dr. Curtis said.
“However, the reality is that this kind of observational study tells us nothing about causation. For that, clinical trials are required, and numerous such trials have demonstrated that, on average, antidepressants are effective in terms of treating depressive illness and in improving the quality of life of patients with significant depression,” he added.
Michael Sharpe, MD, with University of Oxford, said the study highlights the importance of measuring the long-term outcomes of treatments for depression. “However, this study has no clear implication for the care of patients with depression and certainly should not discourage patients who may benefit from taking these drugs.”
Livia de Picker, MD, PhD, with University of Antwerp, Belgium, said, “What these data do point towards is the persistent treatment gap for depression in the United States, with only 57.6% of patients with major depressive disorder receiving treatment with antidepressants over a 2-year follow-up.”
Funding for the study was provided by King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Almohammed, Dr. de Picker, Dr. Curtis, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Sharpe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vieta has participated in clinical trials of antidepressants and advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Janssen, and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers who conducted the study admit this finding was unexpected, and outside experts say no firm conclusions can be drawn from the research.
“Of course we were surprised by the results,” first author Omar Almohammed, PharmD, PhD, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told this news organization.
“We were expecting to see some positive impact with the use of antidepressant medications on the HRQoL measures when we compared these patients to patients that did not use antidepressant medications,” Dr. Almohammed said.
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
Controversial impact on quality of life
Depression is known to harm HRQoL. Despite evidence that antidepressants improve depressed mood, their effect on patients’ overall well-being and HRQoL remains controversial.
The researchers examined the effect of antidepressants on HRQoL in adults with depression using 11 years of data from the U.S. Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), a large longitudinal survey that tracks health service use in the United States. HRQoL was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).
On average, about 17.5 million adults were diagnosed with depression each year during the study period (2005-2016). More than half (57.6%) of these patients were treated with antidepressants.
Patients with depression had an average age of 48.3 years. Women made up more than two-thirds of the total sample (68%), and more women than men received antidepressants (61% vs. 52%).
Compared with no antidepressant use, antidepressant use was associated with some improvement on the mental, but not physical, component of the SF-12, the researchers report.
However, difference-in-differences (D-I-D) univariate analysis showed no significant difference between adults using and not using antidepressants in the SF-12 physical (-0.35 vs. -0.34; P = .9,595) or mental component (1.28 vs. 1.13; P = .6,405).
“The multivariate D-I-D analyses ensured the robustness of these results,” the researchers note.
The change in HRQoL observed in patients using antidepressants was not significantly different from that seen among peers not using these drugs, the researchers report.
“We are not saying that antidepressant medications are not helpful at all; HRQoL is only one of many measures intended to assess health outcomes,” Dr. Almohammed told this news organization.
“Based on our research design and data, we can only say that patients who used antidepressant medications did not experience better change in terms of HRQoL compared to patients who did not use antidepressant medications,” he said.
“These patients may have had some improvement on other clinical outcome measures, but that clinical improvement did not have a significant positive impact on HRQoL,” he noted.
“We still recommend that patients continue using their antidepressant medications, but they may want to ask their doctors to provide them with other nonpharmacologic interventions as this may have additional impact on their HRQoL,” Dr. Almohammed said.
Further research is needed to address a “gap in knowledge” about the impact of nondrug interventions – alone or in combination with antidepressant medications – on patients’ HRQoL, Dr. Almohammed added.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center.
Gemma Lewis, PhD, with University College London (UCL), noted that “clinical trials with experimental designs have found that antidepressants improve mental health-related quality of life.”
“In this study, the people who received antidepressants had worse quality of life, and are likely to have been more severely depressed, than those who did not. This type of bias is difficult to eliminate in a naturalistic study like this, which does not involve an experimental design,” Dr. Lewis commented.
Eduard Vieta, PhD, with University of Barcelona, noted the “inability to control for severity of depression between the two different groups is a crucial flaw, and therefore, there is little we can learn from this data.”
Echoing Dr. Vieta, David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with UCL Genetics Institute, said, “One might well assume that the people who were taking antidepressants had been more severely depressed than those who were not.”
“From this point of view, one could argue that it seems that the antidepressants were effective and that with their use people who had presented with more severe depression did not have markedly reduced quality of life,” Dr. Curtis said.
“However, the reality is that this kind of observational study tells us nothing about causation. For that, clinical trials are required, and numerous such trials have demonstrated that, on average, antidepressants are effective in terms of treating depressive illness and in improving the quality of life of patients with significant depression,” he added.
Michael Sharpe, MD, with University of Oxford, said the study highlights the importance of measuring the long-term outcomes of treatments for depression. “However, this study has no clear implication for the care of patients with depression and certainly should not discourage patients who may benefit from taking these drugs.”
Livia de Picker, MD, PhD, with University of Antwerp, Belgium, said, “What these data do point towards is the persistent treatment gap for depression in the United States, with only 57.6% of patients with major depressive disorder receiving treatment with antidepressants over a 2-year follow-up.”
Funding for the study was provided by King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Almohammed, Dr. de Picker, Dr. Curtis, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Sharpe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vieta has participated in clinical trials of antidepressants and advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Janssen, and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers who conducted the study admit this finding was unexpected, and outside experts say no firm conclusions can be drawn from the research.
“Of course we were surprised by the results,” first author Omar Almohammed, PharmD, PhD, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told this news organization.
“We were expecting to see some positive impact with the use of antidepressant medications on the HRQoL measures when we compared these patients to patients that did not use antidepressant medications,” Dr. Almohammed said.
The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
Controversial impact on quality of life
Depression is known to harm HRQoL. Despite evidence that antidepressants improve depressed mood, their effect on patients’ overall well-being and HRQoL remains controversial.
The researchers examined the effect of antidepressants on HRQoL in adults with depression using 11 years of data from the U.S. Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), a large longitudinal survey that tracks health service use in the United States. HRQoL was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).
On average, about 17.5 million adults were diagnosed with depression each year during the study period (2005-2016). More than half (57.6%) of these patients were treated with antidepressants.
Patients with depression had an average age of 48.3 years. Women made up more than two-thirds of the total sample (68%), and more women than men received antidepressants (61% vs. 52%).
Compared with no antidepressant use, antidepressant use was associated with some improvement on the mental, but not physical, component of the SF-12, the researchers report.
However, difference-in-differences (D-I-D) univariate analysis showed no significant difference between adults using and not using antidepressants in the SF-12 physical (-0.35 vs. -0.34; P = .9,595) or mental component (1.28 vs. 1.13; P = .6,405).
“The multivariate D-I-D analyses ensured the robustness of these results,” the researchers note.
The change in HRQoL observed in patients using antidepressants was not significantly different from that seen among peers not using these drugs, the researchers report.
“We are not saying that antidepressant medications are not helpful at all; HRQoL is only one of many measures intended to assess health outcomes,” Dr. Almohammed told this news organization.
“Based on our research design and data, we can only say that patients who used antidepressant medications did not experience better change in terms of HRQoL compared to patients who did not use antidepressant medications,” he said.
“These patients may have had some improvement on other clinical outcome measures, but that clinical improvement did not have a significant positive impact on HRQoL,” he noted.
“We still recommend that patients continue using their antidepressant medications, but they may want to ask their doctors to provide them with other nonpharmacologic interventions as this may have additional impact on their HRQoL,” Dr. Almohammed said.
Further research is needed to address a “gap in knowledge” about the impact of nondrug interventions – alone or in combination with antidepressant medications – on patients’ HRQoL, Dr. Almohammed added.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center.
Gemma Lewis, PhD, with University College London (UCL), noted that “clinical trials with experimental designs have found that antidepressants improve mental health-related quality of life.”
“In this study, the people who received antidepressants had worse quality of life, and are likely to have been more severely depressed, than those who did not. This type of bias is difficult to eliminate in a naturalistic study like this, which does not involve an experimental design,” Dr. Lewis commented.
Eduard Vieta, PhD, with University of Barcelona, noted the “inability to control for severity of depression between the two different groups is a crucial flaw, and therefore, there is little we can learn from this data.”
Echoing Dr. Vieta, David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with UCL Genetics Institute, said, “One might well assume that the people who were taking antidepressants had been more severely depressed than those who were not.”
“From this point of view, one could argue that it seems that the antidepressants were effective and that with their use people who had presented with more severe depression did not have markedly reduced quality of life,” Dr. Curtis said.
“However, the reality is that this kind of observational study tells us nothing about causation. For that, clinical trials are required, and numerous such trials have demonstrated that, on average, antidepressants are effective in terms of treating depressive illness and in improving the quality of life of patients with significant depression,” he added.
Michael Sharpe, MD, with University of Oxford, said the study highlights the importance of measuring the long-term outcomes of treatments for depression. “However, this study has no clear implication for the care of patients with depression and certainly should not discourage patients who may benefit from taking these drugs.”
Livia de Picker, MD, PhD, with University of Antwerp, Belgium, said, “What these data do point towards is the persistent treatment gap for depression in the United States, with only 57.6% of patients with major depressive disorder receiving treatment with antidepressants over a 2-year follow-up.”
Funding for the study was provided by King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Almohammed, Dr. de Picker, Dr. Curtis, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Sharpe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vieta has participated in clinical trials of antidepressants and advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Janssen, and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How can we help refugees with PTSD?
This article was originally published in Italian on Univadis .
The arrival of Ukrainian refugees in Western Europe, and especially the arrival of women and children coming from the cities most affected by the attacks, has made local medical services the first point of contact for the diagnosis and care of the psychological effects of war.
Many studies demonstrate the high prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety among refugees. For example, a study from 2019 on refugee mental health offers a disturbing epidemiologic insight: Ten percent of refugees escaping conflict in Nepal showed signs of PTSD, 27.5% suffered from depression, and 22.9% suffered from anxiety. The rate of depression surpasses 90% in all studies carried out on survivors of torture.
Official guidelines
Posttraumatic stress is a form of mental disorder that manifests after experiencing highly traumatic events. Defined and studied in the United States, especially in veterans of the Vietnam War, and subsequently reviewed in relation to more recent conflicts, PTSD may appear in people of all ages. It also can occur in family members, witnesses, and aid workers involved in traumatic events. PTSD may come from repeated exposure to episodes of violence and degradation.
Because PTSD is a complex mental disorder derived from multiple factors, both personal and environmental, a diagnosis is never straightforward. It is generally indicated as “a condition of acute stress which manifests after exposure to a traumatic event.”
Among the most common symptoms of war-related trauma, according to experts, are the onset of flashbacks of troublesome memories, intrusive trauma-related thoughts, panic attacks, insomnia and night terrors, and social avoidance. In children, elements of regression can be observed, such as a need to sleep next to their parents.
Research performed directly on different areas of the brain has demonstrated that people affected by PTSD produce abnormal levels of hormones that are involved in responding to stress and fear. The area of the brain responsible for this response is the amygdala, which activates during moments of fear and produces natural pain-relieving molecules. In people with PTSD, the production of these molecules can carry on long after the event is over, causing a change in emotional state. Furthermore, levels of neurotransmitters that reach the hippocampus are also altered, which influences memory and learning capability. These same alterations concerning neurotransmitter levels are the basis for sudden flashbacks.
People with PTSD are subject to a change in blood flow to the brain and structural changes to brain tissue.
Social factors
“A factor that worsens the mental condition of Ukrainian refugees is the speed in which they have passed from a normal life, similar to that of many other Western countries, to a state of war, death, and injury,” writes Arash Javanbakht, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at Wayne State University in Detroit, and an expert in PTSD in war refugees.
“Furthermore, they are experiencing an awful feeling of injustice, as the democracy and freedom that they have fought so hard to have has been put at risk, and they don’t feel sufficiently supported by their allies.”
As of this writing, the World Health Organization has estimated that there are 3.6 million Ukrainian refugees. This population already has experienced war and its psychological consequences. A study from 2019 assessed the prevalence of PTSD (27%) and depression (21%) among the 1.5 million Ukrainians who had to leave their homes after the first Russian invasion in 2014 and the rebellion of predominantly Russian regions.
Children are particularly at risk of developing PTSD, as seen from studies conducted on Syrian refugees. They have a roughly 70% chance of developing separation anxiety, a condition that many workers and volunteers have experienced firsthand recently. Some children do not accept being separated from their parents even to allow them to go to the bathroom or wash themselves, which also aggravates stress levels among adults. Infant trauma increases the risk of developing physical or mental disorders during adulthood, including depression, chronic pain, heart disorders, and diabetes.
War-related trauma entails transmissible epigenetic alterations, as shown by studies on the transmissibility of trauma on a biological level.
Diagnosis and treatment
People with PTSD have difficulty controlling their emotions, resulting in irritability, sudden rage or emotional confusion, depression and anxiety, and insomnia. They also are determined to avoid any actions that remind them of the traumatic event. Another common symptom is a sense of shame, as a result of having survived or not having been able to save others.
Physical symptoms include chest pain, dizziness, gastrointestinal problems, migraine, and a weakened immune system. A diagnosis of PTSD can be made when, in accordance with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the patient presents with the characteristic symptoms for more than a month after the event that caused the symptoms occurred.
The NIMH highlights that a diagnosis cannot always be made in a systematic way. In many cases, patients with PTSD are treated for the physical symptoms only, without any consideration for the overall picture.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has created a detailed list of PTSD symptoms. According to the APA, these symptoms usually appear within 3 months of the trauma, even if stress may appear later. Symptoms are arranged into the following three well-defined categories:
- Intrusive memories. People with PTSD suffer from sudden, vivid memories that are accompanied by painful emotions and a feeling of reliving the trauma. At times, this experience is so strong that the person involved feels as though the traumatic event is repeating itself.
- Avoidance and numbing. The individual seeks to avoid contact with anyone or anything that brings back memories of the trauma. Initially, the person experiences an emotional state of disinterest and detachment, reducing the capacity for emotional interaction and resulting in participation only in simple, routine activities. A lack of emotional processing causes an accumulation of anxiety and tension, which can become a chronic condition, leading to depression. At the same time, people frequently experience a sense of shame.
- Hyperarousal and hypervigilance. People behave as if they are constantly threatened. They react in a sudden, violent way, are unable to concentrate, and have problems with their memory. At times, they use alcohol or other drugs to alleviate pain. People with PTSD may lose control of their lives and therefore be at risk for suicidal behavior.
Why do some people pass unscathed through traumatic situations, whereas others carry the scars forever? There is a correlation with the severity of the trauma, but also with biological and genetic factors, as well as with previous experiences that contribute to increasing an individual’s resilience. Another key element is the rapid and effective treatment of symptoms, which also relates to personal and financial security.
It is not a coincidence that the first guidelines that clinicians follow when treating a traumatized patient aren’t strictly medical. It is necessary to guarantee the financial security of a refugee, but also the security of the few valuable items they have with them (such as keepsakes and pets). Clinicians are advised to facilitate contact with any of the patient’s family members located elsewhere whenever possible. It is appropriate to use relaxation techniques that are compatible with the patient’s cultural approach. Clinicians also check for the most common conditions in the refugee’s population of origin. It is advisable constantly to check for trauma-related symptoms and to listen to the patient’s story. Caregivers should be allowed to stay close to their children and should be provided sufficient information, but not an overwhelming amount.
There isn’t a consensus on how to treat people with PTSD. The possibility that PTSD can be resolved even without specific treatments has not been excluded, if the affected person is cared for and helped within a family and community setting, and if the person’s personal condition allows for this. However, in general, some form of treatment is beneficial before symptoms become chronic.
Pharmacologic and psychological treatment may be implemented. For the latter, the NIMH and the APA suggest that good results can be obtained from cognitive behavioral therapy, where the patient learns to manage his or her anxiety and depression and amend dangerous behaviors, such as the dismissal of his or her own emotions. According to these organizations, group therapy and other forms of psychotherapy have provided good results. The indicated duration of treatment is generally 6-12 weeks, even if this duration strongly depends on the individual’s condition, with subsequent periodic follow-ups. The involvement of the patient’s family and community is important.
The National Center for PTSD in Washington (run by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) has highlighted the importance of a detailed case-by-case assessment to put in place a precise therapy plan. If patients should continue to find themselves in a state of crisis, for example during a war or in cases of domestic violence, working toward removing the cause of stress is first necessary before beginning treatment.
An important aspect is making the victim aware of the disorder. Treatment should therefore begin after the patient and family have been informed about the possibility of PTSD and the way in which it develops. Recognizing the symptoms over the following weeks and working quickly to manage and treat them significantly affects treatment success.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published in Italian on Univadis .
The arrival of Ukrainian refugees in Western Europe, and especially the arrival of women and children coming from the cities most affected by the attacks, has made local medical services the first point of contact for the diagnosis and care of the psychological effects of war.
Many studies demonstrate the high prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety among refugees. For example, a study from 2019 on refugee mental health offers a disturbing epidemiologic insight: Ten percent of refugees escaping conflict in Nepal showed signs of PTSD, 27.5% suffered from depression, and 22.9% suffered from anxiety. The rate of depression surpasses 90% in all studies carried out on survivors of torture.
Official guidelines
Posttraumatic stress is a form of mental disorder that manifests after experiencing highly traumatic events. Defined and studied in the United States, especially in veterans of the Vietnam War, and subsequently reviewed in relation to more recent conflicts, PTSD may appear in people of all ages. It also can occur in family members, witnesses, and aid workers involved in traumatic events. PTSD may come from repeated exposure to episodes of violence and degradation.
Because PTSD is a complex mental disorder derived from multiple factors, both personal and environmental, a diagnosis is never straightforward. It is generally indicated as “a condition of acute stress which manifests after exposure to a traumatic event.”
Among the most common symptoms of war-related trauma, according to experts, are the onset of flashbacks of troublesome memories, intrusive trauma-related thoughts, panic attacks, insomnia and night terrors, and social avoidance. In children, elements of regression can be observed, such as a need to sleep next to their parents.
Research performed directly on different areas of the brain has demonstrated that people affected by PTSD produce abnormal levels of hormones that are involved in responding to stress and fear. The area of the brain responsible for this response is the amygdala, which activates during moments of fear and produces natural pain-relieving molecules. In people with PTSD, the production of these molecules can carry on long after the event is over, causing a change in emotional state. Furthermore, levels of neurotransmitters that reach the hippocampus are also altered, which influences memory and learning capability. These same alterations concerning neurotransmitter levels are the basis for sudden flashbacks.
People with PTSD are subject to a change in blood flow to the brain and structural changes to brain tissue.
Social factors
“A factor that worsens the mental condition of Ukrainian refugees is the speed in which they have passed from a normal life, similar to that of many other Western countries, to a state of war, death, and injury,” writes Arash Javanbakht, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at Wayne State University in Detroit, and an expert in PTSD in war refugees.
“Furthermore, they are experiencing an awful feeling of injustice, as the democracy and freedom that they have fought so hard to have has been put at risk, and they don’t feel sufficiently supported by their allies.”
As of this writing, the World Health Organization has estimated that there are 3.6 million Ukrainian refugees. This population already has experienced war and its psychological consequences. A study from 2019 assessed the prevalence of PTSD (27%) and depression (21%) among the 1.5 million Ukrainians who had to leave their homes after the first Russian invasion in 2014 and the rebellion of predominantly Russian regions.
Children are particularly at risk of developing PTSD, as seen from studies conducted on Syrian refugees. They have a roughly 70% chance of developing separation anxiety, a condition that many workers and volunteers have experienced firsthand recently. Some children do not accept being separated from their parents even to allow them to go to the bathroom or wash themselves, which also aggravates stress levels among adults. Infant trauma increases the risk of developing physical or mental disorders during adulthood, including depression, chronic pain, heart disorders, and diabetes.
War-related trauma entails transmissible epigenetic alterations, as shown by studies on the transmissibility of trauma on a biological level.
Diagnosis and treatment
People with PTSD have difficulty controlling their emotions, resulting in irritability, sudden rage or emotional confusion, depression and anxiety, and insomnia. They also are determined to avoid any actions that remind them of the traumatic event. Another common symptom is a sense of shame, as a result of having survived or not having been able to save others.
Physical symptoms include chest pain, dizziness, gastrointestinal problems, migraine, and a weakened immune system. A diagnosis of PTSD can be made when, in accordance with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the patient presents with the characteristic symptoms for more than a month after the event that caused the symptoms occurred.
The NIMH highlights that a diagnosis cannot always be made in a systematic way. In many cases, patients with PTSD are treated for the physical symptoms only, without any consideration for the overall picture.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has created a detailed list of PTSD symptoms. According to the APA, these symptoms usually appear within 3 months of the trauma, even if stress may appear later. Symptoms are arranged into the following three well-defined categories:
- Intrusive memories. People with PTSD suffer from sudden, vivid memories that are accompanied by painful emotions and a feeling of reliving the trauma. At times, this experience is so strong that the person involved feels as though the traumatic event is repeating itself.
- Avoidance and numbing. The individual seeks to avoid contact with anyone or anything that brings back memories of the trauma. Initially, the person experiences an emotional state of disinterest and detachment, reducing the capacity for emotional interaction and resulting in participation only in simple, routine activities. A lack of emotional processing causes an accumulation of anxiety and tension, which can become a chronic condition, leading to depression. At the same time, people frequently experience a sense of shame.
- Hyperarousal and hypervigilance. People behave as if they are constantly threatened. They react in a sudden, violent way, are unable to concentrate, and have problems with their memory. At times, they use alcohol or other drugs to alleviate pain. People with PTSD may lose control of their lives and therefore be at risk for suicidal behavior.
Why do some people pass unscathed through traumatic situations, whereas others carry the scars forever? There is a correlation with the severity of the trauma, but also with biological and genetic factors, as well as with previous experiences that contribute to increasing an individual’s resilience. Another key element is the rapid and effective treatment of symptoms, which also relates to personal and financial security.
It is not a coincidence that the first guidelines that clinicians follow when treating a traumatized patient aren’t strictly medical. It is necessary to guarantee the financial security of a refugee, but also the security of the few valuable items they have with them (such as keepsakes and pets). Clinicians are advised to facilitate contact with any of the patient’s family members located elsewhere whenever possible. It is appropriate to use relaxation techniques that are compatible with the patient’s cultural approach. Clinicians also check for the most common conditions in the refugee’s population of origin. It is advisable constantly to check for trauma-related symptoms and to listen to the patient’s story. Caregivers should be allowed to stay close to their children and should be provided sufficient information, but not an overwhelming amount.
There isn’t a consensus on how to treat people with PTSD. The possibility that PTSD can be resolved even without specific treatments has not been excluded, if the affected person is cared for and helped within a family and community setting, and if the person’s personal condition allows for this. However, in general, some form of treatment is beneficial before symptoms become chronic.
Pharmacologic and psychological treatment may be implemented. For the latter, the NIMH and the APA suggest that good results can be obtained from cognitive behavioral therapy, where the patient learns to manage his or her anxiety and depression and amend dangerous behaviors, such as the dismissal of his or her own emotions. According to these organizations, group therapy and other forms of psychotherapy have provided good results. The indicated duration of treatment is generally 6-12 weeks, even if this duration strongly depends on the individual’s condition, with subsequent periodic follow-ups. The involvement of the patient’s family and community is important.
The National Center for PTSD in Washington (run by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) has highlighted the importance of a detailed case-by-case assessment to put in place a precise therapy plan. If patients should continue to find themselves in a state of crisis, for example during a war or in cases of domestic violence, working toward removing the cause of stress is first necessary before beginning treatment.
An important aspect is making the victim aware of the disorder. Treatment should therefore begin after the patient and family have been informed about the possibility of PTSD and the way in which it develops. Recognizing the symptoms over the following weeks and working quickly to manage and treat them significantly affects treatment success.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published in Italian on Univadis .
The arrival of Ukrainian refugees in Western Europe, and especially the arrival of women and children coming from the cities most affected by the attacks, has made local medical services the first point of contact for the diagnosis and care of the psychological effects of war.
Many studies demonstrate the high prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety among refugees. For example, a study from 2019 on refugee mental health offers a disturbing epidemiologic insight: Ten percent of refugees escaping conflict in Nepal showed signs of PTSD, 27.5% suffered from depression, and 22.9% suffered from anxiety. The rate of depression surpasses 90% in all studies carried out on survivors of torture.
Official guidelines
Posttraumatic stress is a form of mental disorder that manifests after experiencing highly traumatic events. Defined and studied in the United States, especially in veterans of the Vietnam War, and subsequently reviewed in relation to more recent conflicts, PTSD may appear in people of all ages. It also can occur in family members, witnesses, and aid workers involved in traumatic events. PTSD may come from repeated exposure to episodes of violence and degradation.
Because PTSD is a complex mental disorder derived from multiple factors, both personal and environmental, a diagnosis is never straightforward. It is generally indicated as “a condition of acute stress which manifests after exposure to a traumatic event.”
Among the most common symptoms of war-related trauma, according to experts, are the onset of flashbacks of troublesome memories, intrusive trauma-related thoughts, panic attacks, insomnia and night terrors, and social avoidance. In children, elements of regression can be observed, such as a need to sleep next to their parents.
Research performed directly on different areas of the brain has demonstrated that people affected by PTSD produce abnormal levels of hormones that are involved in responding to stress and fear. The area of the brain responsible for this response is the amygdala, which activates during moments of fear and produces natural pain-relieving molecules. In people with PTSD, the production of these molecules can carry on long after the event is over, causing a change in emotional state. Furthermore, levels of neurotransmitters that reach the hippocampus are also altered, which influences memory and learning capability. These same alterations concerning neurotransmitter levels are the basis for sudden flashbacks.
People with PTSD are subject to a change in blood flow to the brain and structural changes to brain tissue.
Social factors
“A factor that worsens the mental condition of Ukrainian refugees is the speed in which they have passed from a normal life, similar to that of many other Western countries, to a state of war, death, and injury,” writes Arash Javanbakht, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at Wayne State University in Detroit, and an expert in PTSD in war refugees.
“Furthermore, they are experiencing an awful feeling of injustice, as the democracy and freedom that they have fought so hard to have has been put at risk, and they don’t feel sufficiently supported by their allies.”
As of this writing, the World Health Organization has estimated that there are 3.6 million Ukrainian refugees. This population already has experienced war and its psychological consequences. A study from 2019 assessed the prevalence of PTSD (27%) and depression (21%) among the 1.5 million Ukrainians who had to leave their homes after the first Russian invasion in 2014 and the rebellion of predominantly Russian regions.
Children are particularly at risk of developing PTSD, as seen from studies conducted on Syrian refugees. They have a roughly 70% chance of developing separation anxiety, a condition that many workers and volunteers have experienced firsthand recently. Some children do not accept being separated from their parents even to allow them to go to the bathroom or wash themselves, which also aggravates stress levels among adults. Infant trauma increases the risk of developing physical or mental disorders during adulthood, including depression, chronic pain, heart disorders, and diabetes.
War-related trauma entails transmissible epigenetic alterations, as shown by studies on the transmissibility of trauma on a biological level.
Diagnosis and treatment
People with PTSD have difficulty controlling their emotions, resulting in irritability, sudden rage or emotional confusion, depression and anxiety, and insomnia. They also are determined to avoid any actions that remind them of the traumatic event. Another common symptom is a sense of shame, as a result of having survived or not having been able to save others.
Physical symptoms include chest pain, dizziness, gastrointestinal problems, migraine, and a weakened immune system. A diagnosis of PTSD can be made when, in accordance with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the patient presents with the characteristic symptoms for more than a month after the event that caused the symptoms occurred.
The NIMH highlights that a diagnosis cannot always be made in a systematic way. In many cases, patients with PTSD are treated for the physical symptoms only, without any consideration for the overall picture.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has created a detailed list of PTSD symptoms. According to the APA, these symptoms usually appear within 3 months of the trauma, even if stress may appear later. Symptoms are arranged into the following three well-defined categories:
- Intrusive memories. People with PTSD suffer from sudden, vivid memories that are accompanied by painful emotions and a feeling of reliving the trauma. At times, this experience is so strong that the person involved feels as though the traumatic event is repeating itself.
- Avoidance and numbing. The individual seeks to avoid contact with anyone or anything that brings back memories of the trauma. Initially, the person experiences an emotional state of disinterest and detachment, reducing the capacity for emotional interaction and resulting in participation only in simple, routine activities. A lack of emotional processing causes an accumulation of anxiety and tension, which can become a chronic condition, leading to depression. At the same time, people frequently experience a sense of shame.
- Hyperarousal and hypervigilance. People behave as if they are constantly threatened. They react in a sudden, violent way, are unable to concentrate, and have problems with their memory. At times, they use alcohol or other drugs to alleviate pain. People with PTSD may lose control of their lives and therefore be at risk for suicidal behavior.
Why do some people pass unscathed through traumatic situations, whereas others carry the scars forever? There is a correlation with the severity of the trauma, but also with biological and genetic factors, as well as with previous experiences that contribute to increasing an individual’s resilience. Another key element is the rapid and effective treatment of symptoms, which also relates to personal and financial security.
It is not a coincidence that the first guidelines that clinicians follow when treating a traumatized patient aren’t strictly medical. It is necessary to guarantee the financial security of a refugee, but also the security of the few valuable items they have with them (such as keepsakes and pets). Clinicians are advised to facilitate contact with any of the patient’s family members located elsewhere whenever possible. It is appropriate to use relaxation techniques that are compatible with the patient’s cultural approach. Clinicians also check for the most common conditions in the refugee’s population of origin. It is advisable constantly to check for trauma-related symptoms and to listen to the patient’s story. Caregivers should be allowed to stay close to their children and should be provided sufficient information, but not an overwhelming amount.
There isn’t a consensus on how to treat people with PTSD. The possibility that PTSD can be resolved even without specific treatments has not been excluded, if the affected person is cared for and helped within a family and community setting, and if the person’s personal condition allows for this. However, in general, some form of treatment is beneficial before symptoms become chronic.
Pharmacologic and psychological treatment may be implemented. For the latter, the NIMH and the APA suggest that good results can be obtained from cognitive behavioral therapy, where the patient learns to manage his or her anxiety and depression and amend dangerous behaviors, such as the dismissal of his or her own emotions. According to these organizations, group therapy and other forms of psychotherapy have provided good results. The indicated duration of treatment is generally 6-12 weeks, even if this duration strongly depends on the individual’s condition, with subsequent periodic follow-ups. The involvement of the patient’s family and community is important.
The National Center for PTSD in Washington (run by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) has highlighted the importance of a detailed case-by-case assessment to put in place a precise therapy plan. If patients should continue to find themselves in a state of crisis, for example during a war or in cases of domestic violence, working toward removing the cause of stress is first necessary before beginning treatment.
An important aspect is making the victim aware of the disorder. Treatment should therefore begin after the patient and family have been informed about the possibility of PTSD and the way in which it develops. Recognizing the symptoms over the following weeks and working quickly to manage and treat them significantly affects treatment success.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Firearm counseling in the ED could be lifesaving for teens
Caregivers who brought suicidal adolescents to the emergency department reported safer gun storage practices after firearm counseling – a crucial way to cut gun deaths among children, according to researchers from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
In the study, which took place between June 2021 and Feb 2022, gun safety counseling and handouts were provided to 99 families of children who had come to the ED with mental health problems. A separate set of 101 families in similar situations received counseling and handouts, along with two cable-style gun locks.
Four weeks later, parents in both groups reported an increase in safe storage practices in which they locked away all guns in the household. Those offered only counseling increased safe storage by 7.2% – from 89.9% to 97.1%.
The gains were greater for families that received locks in addition to counseling. The number of those who locked away all guns rose from 82.2% to 98.5% – a 16.3% increase. (Roughly one-third of families in both arms of the study were lost to follow-up, according to the researchers, which left 68 families in each group for analysis.)
Several caregivers in each group reported that guns had been removed entirely from the home, and more than 60% in each group said they had bought additional gun locks to secure their weapons.
“The main point of our study is that just-in-time counseling is very effective in helping these families of children with mental health concerns in securing all their guns, and an emergency department visit is a great time to do that,” said Bijan Ketabchi, MD, a clinical fellow in the division of emergency medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, who presented the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Dr. Ketabchi said his department sees 500-700 children each month with mental health concerns, most commonly depression. The mean age of adolescent patients in the study was 14 years.
Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among children in the United States. Both pediatric suicides and firearm suicides have increased in the past 2 decades, Dr. Ketabchi said. The number of youth suicides who use guns has risen 90% since 2008. One in three U.S. families own a firearm, and 4.6 million children live in a home with loaded, unlocked guns.
Among children aged 17 years and younger who die by firearm suicide, 82% used guns belonging to a family member.
The right time for the message
Interventions to encourage safe gun storage – at a time when caregivers are really listening – can be lifesaving, Dr. Ketabchi said.
“We know that counseling is really helpful for these families, because when they come to the emergency department with a concern, they can have a teachable moment,” he said in an interview. “It resonates with them a lot more than it normally would because they have experienced something traumatic.”
The importance of safe gun storage in households with adolescents can’t be overstated, even if the children are not at risk of suicide, said Naoka Carey, a doctoral candidate at Boston College.
Ms. Carey authored an article on the prevalence of handguns among adolescents that will be published in May in Pediatrics.
“Three kinds of harm for adolescents with access to guns are accidental injury, homicide, and suicide,” she said. “Families who own guns don’t always know their teens have access to the guns.”
The problem is getting worse. Ms. Carey and colleagues found that, between 2002 and 2019, the rate of children aged 12-17 who reported carrying handguns increased 41%. Most of them were White, and their families were in high-income brackets. New data show that firearm injuries have become the leading cause of death among youth in the United States, eclipsing auto accidents for the first time.
“Preventing tragedy in your family is more than reason enough to secure guns you have,” she said.
Dr. Ketabchi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Caregivers who brought suicidal adolescents to the emergency department reported safer gun storage practices after firearm counseling – a crucial way to cut gun deaths among children, according to researchers from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
In the study, which took place between June 2021 and Feb 2022, gun safety counseling and handouts were provided to 99 families of children who had come to the ED with mental health problems. A separate set of 101 families in similar situations received counseling and handouts, along with two cable-style gun locks.
Four weeks later, parents in both groups reported an increase in safe storage practices in which they locked away all guns in the household. Those offered only counseling increased safe storage by 7.2% – from 89.9% to 97.1%.
The gains were greater for families that received locks in addition to counseling. The number of those who locked away all guns rose from 82.2% to 98.5% – a 16.3% increase. (Roughly one-third of families in both arms of the study were lost to follow-up, according to the researchers, which left 68 families in each group for analysis.)
Several caregivers in each group reported that guns had been removed entirely from the home, and more than 60% in each group said they had bought additional gun locks to secure their weapons.
“The main point of our study is that just-in-time counseling is very effective in helping these families of children with mental health concerns in securing all their guns, and an emergency department visit is a great time to do that,” said Bijan Ketabchi, MD, a clinical fellow in the division of emergency medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, who presented the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Dr. Ketabchi said his department sees 500-700 children each month with mental health concerns, most commonly depression. The mean age of adolescent patients in the study was 14 years.
Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among children in the United States. Both pediatric suicides and firearm suicides have increased in the past 2 decades, Dr. Ketabchi said. The number of youth suicides who use guns has risen 90% since 2008. One in three U.S. families own a firearm, and 4.6 million children live in a home with loaded, unlocked guns.
Among children aged 17 years and younger who die by firearm suicide, 82% used guns belonging to a family member.
The right time for the message
Interventions to encourage safe gun storage – at a time when caregivers are really listening – can be lifesaving, Dr. Ketabchi said.
“We know that counseling is really helpful for these families, because when they come to the emergency department with a concern, they can have a teachable moment,” he said in an interview. “It resonates with them a lot more than it normally would because they have experienced something traumatic.”
The importance of safe gun storage in households with adolescents can’t be overstated, even if the children are not at risk of suicide, said Naoka Carey, a doctoral candidate at Boston College.
Ms. Carey authored an article on the prevalence of handguns among adolescents that will be published in May in Pediatrics.
“Three kinds of harm for adolescents with access to guns are accidental injury, homicide, and suicide,” she said. “Families who own guns don’t always know their teens have access to the guns.”
The problem is getting worse. Ms. Carey and colleagues found that, between 2002 and 2019, the rate of children aged 12-17 who reported carrying handguns increased 41%. Most of them were White, and their families were in high-income brackets. New data show that firearm injuries have become the leading cause of death among youth in the United States, eclipsing auto accidents for the first time.
“Preventing tragedy in your family is more than reason enough to secure guns you have,” she said.
Dr. Ketabchi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Caregivers who brought suicidal adolescents to the emergency department reported safer gun storage practices after firearm counseling – a crucial way to cut gun deaths among children, according to researchers from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
In the study, which took place between June 2021 and Feb 2022, gun safety counseling and handouts were provided to 99 families of children who had come to the ED with mental health problems. A separate set of 101 families in similar situations received counseling and handouts, along with two cable-style gun locks.
Four weeks later, parents in both groups reported an increase in safe storage practices in which they locked away all guns in the household. Those offered only counseling increased safe storage by 7.2% – from 89.9% to 97.1%.
The gains were greater for families that received locks in addition to counseling. The number of those who locked away all guns rose from 82.2% to 98.5% – a 16.3% increase. (Roughly one-third of families in both arms of the study were lost to follow-up, according to the researchers, which left 68 families in each group for analysis.)
Several caregivers in each group reported that guns had been removed entirely from the home, and more than 60% in each group said they had bought additional gun locks to secure their weapons.
“The main point of our study is that just-in-time counseling is very effective in helping these families of children with mental health concerns in securing all their guns, and an emergency department visit is a great time to do that,” said Bijan Ketabchi, MD, a clinical fellow in the division of emergency medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, who presented the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Dr. Ketabchi said his department sees 500-700 children each month with mental health concerns, most commonly depression. The mean age of adolescent patients in the study was 14 years.
Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among children in the United States. Both pediatric suicides and firearm suicides have increased in the past 2 decades, Dr. Ketabchi said. The number of youth suicides who use guns has risen 90% since 2008. One in three U.S. families own a firearm, and 4.6 million children live in a home with loaded, unlocked guns.
Among children aged 17 years and younger who die by firearm suicide, 82% used guns belonging to a family member.
The right time for the message
Interventions to encourage safe gun storage – at a time when caregivers are really listening – can be lifesaving, Dr. Ketabchi said.
“We know that counseling is really helpful for these families, because when they come to the emergency department with a concern, they can have a teachable moment,” he said in an interview. “It resonates with them a lot more than it normally would because they have experienced something traumatic.”
The importance of safe gun storage in households with adolescents can’t be overstated, even if the children are not at risk of suicide, said Naoka Carey, a doctoral candidate at Boston College.
Ms. Carey authored an article on the prevalence of handguns among adolescents that will be published in May in Pediatrics.
“Three kinds of harm for adolescents with access to guns are accidental injury, homicide, and suicide,” she said. “Families who own guns don’t always know their teens have access to the guns.”
The problem is getting worse. Ms. Carey and colleagues found that, between 2002 and 2019, the rate of children aged 12-17 who reported carrying handguns increased 41%. Most of them were White, and their families were in high-income brackets. New data show that firearm injuries have become the leading cause of death among youth in the United States, eclipsing auto accidents for the first time.
“Preventing tragedy in your family is more than reason enough to secure guns you have,” she said.
Dr. Ketabchi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PAS 2022
High antipsychotic switch rates suggest ‘suboptimal’ prescribing for first-episode psychosis
In a large-scale, real-world analysis of U.K. prescribing patterns, researchers found more than two-thirds of patients who received antipsychotics for FEP switched medication, and almost half switched drugs three times.
Although this is “one of the largest real-world studies examining antipsychotic treatment strategies,” it reflects findings from previous, smaller studies showing “antipsychotic switching in first episode psychosis is high,” said study investigator Aimee Brinn, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London.
This may reflect reports of poor efficacy and suggests that first-line prescribing is “suboptimal,” Ms. Brinn noted. In addition, olanzapine remains the most popular antipsychotic for prescribing despite recent guidelines indicating it is “not ideal ... due to its dangerous metabolic side effects,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) 2022.
Real-world data
The response to, and tolerability of, antipsychotics differs between patients with FEP; and prescribing patterns “reflect clinician and patient-led decisionmaking,” Ms. Brinn told meeting attendees.
Since randomized controlled trials “do not necessarily reflect prescribing practice in real-world clinical settings,” the researchers gathered data from a large mental health care electronic health record dataset.
The investigators examined records from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), which has a catchment area of 1.2 million individuals across four boroughs of London. The group sees approximately 37,500 active patients per week.
The team used the Clinical Interactive Record Search tool to extract data on 2,309 adults with FEP who received care from a SLaM early intervention in psychosis service between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2019.
They found that 12 different antipsychotics were prescribed as first-line treatment. The most common were olanzapine (43.9%), risperidone (24.7%), and aripiprazole (19.9%).
Results showed that over 81,969.5 person-years of follow-up, at a minimum of 24 months per patient, 68.8% had an antipsychotic switch. The most common first treatment switch, in 17.9% of patients, was from olanzapine to aripiprazole.
Of patients who switched to aripiprazole, 48.4% stayed on the drug, 26% switched back to olanzapine, and 25.6% received other treatment. Overall, 44.7% of patients switched medication at least three times.
Among patients with FEP who did not switch, 42.2% were prescribed olanzapine, 26.2% risperidone, 23.3% aripiprazole, 5.6% quetiapine, and 2.7% amisulpride.
During the post-presentation discussion, Ms. Brinn was asked whether the high rate of first-line olanzapine prescribing could be because patients started treatment as inpatients and were then switched once they were moved to community care.
“We found that a lot of patients would be prescribed olanzapine for around 7 days at the start of their prescription and then switch,” Ms. Brinn said, adding it is “likely” they started as inpatients. The investigators are currently examining the differences between inpatient and outpatient prescriptions to verify whether this is indeed the case, she added.
‘Pulling out the big guns too fast?’
Commenting on the findings, Thomas W. Sedlak, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the study raises a “number of questions.”
Both olanzapine and risperidone “tend to have higher treatment effect improvements than aripiprazole, so it’s curious that a switch to aripiprazole was common,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.
“Are we pulling out the ‘big guns’ too fast, or inappropriately, especially as olanzapine and risperidone carry greater risk of weight gain?” he asked. In addition, “now that olanzapine is available with samidorphan to mitigate weight gain, will that shape future patterns, if it can be paid for?”
Dr. Sedlak noted it was unclear why olanzapine was chosen so often as first-line treatment in the study and agreed it is “possible that hospitalized patients had been prescribed a ‘stronger’ medication like olanzapine compared to never-hospitalized patients.”
He also underlined that it is “not clear if patients in this FEP program are representative of all FEP patients.”
“For instance, if the program is well known to inpatient hospital social workers, then the program might be disproportionately filled with patients who have had more severe symptoms,” Dr. Sedlak said.
The study was supported by Janssen-Cilag. The investigators and Dr. Sedlak have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large-scale, real-world analysis of U.K. prescribing patterns, researchers found more than two-thirds of patients who received antipsychotics for FEP switched medication, and almost half switched drugs three times.
Although this is “one of the largest real-world studies examining antipsychotic treatment strategies,” it reflects findings from previous, smaller studies showing “antipsychotic switching in first episode psychosis is high,” said study investigator Aimee Brinn, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London.
This may reflect reports of poor efficacy and suggests that first-line prescribing is “suboptimal,” Ms. Brinn noted. In addition, olanzapine remains the most popular antipsychotic for prescribing despite recent guidelines indicating it is “not ideal ... due to its dangerous metabolic side effects,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) 2022.
Real-world data
The response to, and tolerability of, antipsychotics differs between patients with FEP; and prescribing patterns “reflect clinician and patient-led decisionmaking,” Ms. Brinn told meeting attendees.
Since randomized controlled trials “do not necessarily reflect prescribing practice in real-world clinical settings,” the researchers gathered data from a large mental health care electronic health record dataset.
The investigators examined records from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), which has a catchment area of 1.2 million individuals across four boroughs of London. The group sees approximately 37,500 active patients per week.
The team used the Clinical Interactive Record Search tool to extract data on 2,309 adults with FEP who received care from a SLaM early intervention in psychosis service between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2019.
They found that 12 different antipsychotics were prescribed as first-line treatment. The most common were olanzapine (43.9%), risperidone (24.7%), and aripiprazole (19.9%).
Results showed that over 81,969.5 person-years of follow-up, at a minimum of 24 months per patient, 68.8% had an antipsychotic switch. The most common first treatment switch, in 17.9% of patients, was from olanzapine to aripiprazole.
Of patients who switched to aripiprazole, 48.4% stayed on the drug, 26% switched back to olanzapine, and 25.6% received other treatment. Overall, 44.7% of patients switched medication at least three times.
Among patients with FEP who did not switch, 42.2% were prescribed olanzapine, 26.2% risperidone, 23.3% aripiprazole, 5.6% quetiapine, and 2.7% amisulpride.
During the post-presentation discussion, Ms. Brinn was asked whether the high rate of first-line olanzapine prescribing could be because patients started treatment as inpatients and were then switched once they were moved to community care.
“We found that a lot of patients would be prescribed olanzapine for around 7 days at the start of their prescription and then switch,” Ms. Brinn said, adding it is “likely” they started as inpatients. The investigators are currently examining the differences between inpatient and outpatient prescriptions to verify whether this is indeed the case, she added.
‘Pulling out the big guns too fast?’
Commenting on the findings, Thomas W. Sedlak, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the study raises a “number of questions.”
Both olanzapine and risperidone “tend to have higher treatment effect improvements than aripiprazole, so it’s curious that a switch to aripiprazole was common,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.
“Are we pulling out the ‘big guns’ too fast, or inappropriately, especially as olanzapine and risperidone carry greater risk of weight gain?” he asked. In addition, “now that olanzapine is available with samidorphan to mitigate weight gain, will that shape future patterns, if it can be paid for?”
Dr. Sedlak noted it was unclear why olanzapine was chosen so often as first-line treatment in the study and agreed it is “possible that hospitalized patients had been prescribed a ‘stronger’ medication like olanzapine compared to never-hospitalized patients.”
He also underlined that it is “not clear if patients in this FEP program are representative of all FEP patients.”
“For instance, if the program is well known to inpatient hospital social workers, then the program might be disproportionately filled with patients who have had more severe symptoms,” Dr. Sedlak said.
The study was supported by Janssen-Cilag. The investigators and Dr. Sedlak have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large-scale, real-world analysis of U.K. prescribing patterns, researchers found more than two-thirds of patients who received antipsychotics for FEP switched medication, and almost half switched drugs three times.
Although this is “one of the largest real-world studies examining antipsychotic treatment strategies,” it reflects findings from previous, smaller studies showing “antipsychotic switching in first episode psychosis is high,” said study investigator Aimee Brinn, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London.
This may reflect reports of poor efficacy and suggests that first-line prescribing is “suboptimal,” Ms. Brinn noted. In addition, olanzapine remains the most popular antipsychotic for prescribing despite recent guidelines indicating it is “not ideal ... due to its dangerous metabolic side effects,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) 2022.
Real-world data
The response to, and tolerability of, antipsychotics differs between patients with FEP; and prescribing patterns “reflect clinician and patient-led decisionmaking,” Ms. Brinn told meeting attendees.
Since randomized controlled trials “do not necessarily reflect prescribing practice in real-world clinical settings,” the researchers gathered data from a large mental health care electronic health record dataset.
The investigators examined records from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), which has a catchment area of 1.2 million individuals across four boroughs of London. The group sees approximately 37,500 active patients per week.
The team used the Clinical Interactive Record Search tool to extract data on 2,309 adults with FEP who received care from a SLaM early intervention in psychosis service between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2019.
They found that 12 different antipsychotics were prescribed as first-line treatment. The most common were olanzapine (43.9%), risperidone (24.7%), and aripiprazole (19.9%).
Results showed that over 81,969.5 person-years of follow-up, at a minimum of 24 months per patient, 68.8% had an antipsychotic switch. The most common first treatment switch, in 17.9% of patients, was from olanzapine to aripiprazole.
Of patients who switched to aripiprazole, 48.4% stayed on the drug, 26% switched back to olanzapine, and 25.6% received other treatment. Overall, 44.7% of patients switched medication at least three times.
Among patients with FEP who did not switch, 42.2% were prescribed olanzapine, 26.2% risperidone, 23.3% aripiprazole, 5.6% quetiapine, and 2.7% amisulpride.
During the post-presentation discussion, Ms. Brinn was asked whether the high rate of first-line olanzapine prescribing could be because patients started treatment as inpatients and were then switched once they were moved to community care.
“We found that a lot of patients would be prescribed olanzapine for around 7 days at the start of their prescription and then switch,” Ms. Brinn said, adding it is “likely” they started as inpatients. The investigators are currently examining the differences between inpatient and outpatient prescriptions to verify whether this is indeed the case, she added.
‘Pulling out the big guns too fast?’
Commenting on the findings, Thomas W. Sedlak, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the study raises a “number of questions.”
Both olanzapine and risperidone “tend to have higher treatment effect improvements than aripiprazole, so it’s curious that a switch to aripiprazole was common,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.
“Are we pulling out the ‘big guns’ too fast, or inappropriately, especially as olanzapine and risperidone carry greater risk of weight gain?” he asked. In addition, “now that olanzapine is available with samidorphan to mitigate weight gain, will that shape future patterns, if it can be paid for?”
Dr. Sedlak noted it was unclear why olanzapine was chosen so often as first-line treatment in the study and agreed it is “possible that hospitalized patients had been prescribed a ‘stronger’ medication like olanzapine compared to never-hospitalized patients.”
He also underlined that it is “not clear if patients in this FEP program are representative of all FEP patients.”
“For instance, if the program is well known to inpatient hospital social workers, then the program might be disproportionately filled with patients who have had more severe symptoms,” Dr. Sedlak said.
The study was supported by Janssen-Cilag. The investigators and Dr. Sedlak have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SIRS 2022
Pandemic prompts spike in eating disorder hospitalization for adolescents
Hospital admission for children with eating disorders approximately tripled during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on data from 85 patients.
Eating disorders are common among adolescents and often require hospital admission for nutritional restoration, according to May Shum of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the volume of hospital admissions for adolescents with eating disorders has increased, the researchers wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies. This increase may be driven both by interruptions in medical care and increased psychological distress, but data on changes in patient characteristics and hospitalization course are lacking, they said.
The researchers reviewed charts from patients with eating disorders admitted to a single center between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 30, 2021. The majority of the patients were female (90.6%), and White (78.8%), had restrictive eating behaviors (97.2%), and had private insurance (80.0%).
Overall, the number of monthly admissions increased from 1.4 before the onset of the pandemic to 3.6 during the pandemic (P < .001).
Length of stay increased significantly from before to during pandemic cases (12.8 days vs. 17.3 days, P = .04) and age younger than 13 years was significantly associated with a longer length of stay (P < .001).
The number of patients for whom psychotropic medications were initiated or changed increased significantly (12.5% vs. 28.3%, P = .04); as did the proportion of patients discharged to partial hospitalization, residential, or inpatient psychiatric treatment rather than discharged home with outpatient therapy (56.2% vs. 75.0%, P = .04).
No significant differences were noted in demographics, comorbidities, admission parameters, EKG abnormalities, electrolyte repletion, or tube feeding.
The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center. However, the results suggest an increase in severity of hospital admissions that have implications for use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
“In addition to an increase in hospital admissions for eating disorder management during the pandemic, longer inpatient stays of younger children with higher acuity at discharge is an added strain on hospital resources and warrants attention,” they concluded.
Considerations for younger patients
The current study is especially important at this time, Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said in an interview. “There have been reports of the rising numbers in eating disorders, but until research has been conducted, we cannot quantify the volumes,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study. “There have been many reports of the rise in mental health issues during the pandemic, so it seems accurate that the rate of eating disorders would rise,” she said. “Additionally, from a clinical perspective there seemed to be many younger-age patients with eating disorders presenting to the inpatient units who seemed sicker,” she noted.
Ms. Thew said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Working with adolescents with eating disorders we saw the increased numbers of both hospitalizations and outpatient referrals during the pandemic,” said Ms. Thew. “Length of stay was higher across the nation regarding admissions for concerns of eating disorders. These patients are sicker and fewer went home after medical stabilization,” she emphasized.
“Clinicians should be more aware of the rise in patients presenting with eating disorders at younger ages to their clinics and provide early interventions to prevent severe illness and medical instability,” said Ms. Thew. Clinicians also should be more proactive in managing younger children and adolescents who express mood disorders, disordered eating, or weight loss, given the significant rise in eating disorders and mental health concerns, she said.
Additional research is needed to continue following the rate of eating disorders into 2022, said Ms. Thew. More research is needed on early interventions and recognition of eating disorders for preteens and teens to prevent severe illness, as is research on how the younger patient with an eating disorder may present differently to the primary care doctor or emergency department, she said.
“We may need to study treatment of the younger population, as they may not do as well with admissions into behavioral health facilities,” Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
Hospital admission for children with eating disorders approximately tripled during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on data from 85 patients.
Eating disorders are common among adolescents and often require hospital admission for nutritional restoration, according to May Shum of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the volume of hospital admissions for adolescents with eating disorders has increased, the researchers wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies. This increase may be driven both by interruptions in medical care and increased psychological distress, but data on changes in patient characteristics and hospitalization course are lacking, they said.
The researchers reviewed charts from patients with eating disorders admitted to a single center between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 30, 2021. The majority of the patients were female (90.6%), and White (78.8%), had restrictive eating behaviors (97.2%), and had private insurance (80.0%).
Overall, the number of monthly admissions increased from 1.4 before the onset of the pandemic to 3.6 during the pandemic (P < .001).
Length of stay increased significantly from before to during pandemic cases (12.8 days vs. 17.3 days, P = .04) and age younger than 13 years was significantly associated with a longer length of stay (P < .001).
The number of patients for whom psychotropic medications were initiated or changed increased significantly (12.5% vs. 28.3%, P = .04); as did the proportion of patients discharged to partial hospitalization, residential, or inpatient psychiatric treatment rather than discharged home with outpatient therapy (56.2% vs. 75.0%, P = .04).
No significant differences were noted in demographics, comorbidities, admission parameters, EKG abnormalities, electrolyte repletion, or tube feeding.
The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center. However, the results suggest an increase in severity of hospital admissions that have implications for use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
“In addition to an increase in hospital admissions for eating disorder management during the pandemic, longer inpatient stays of younger children with higher acuity at discharge is an added strain on hospital resources and warrants attention,” they concluded.
Considerations for younger patients
The current study is especially important at this time, Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said in an interview. “There have been reports of the rising numbers in eating disorders, but until research has been conducted, we cannot quantify the volumes,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study. “There have been many reports of the rise in mental health issues during the pandemic, so it seems accurate that the rate of eating disorders would rise,” she said. “Additionally, from a clinical perspective there seemed to be many younger-age patients with eating disorders presenting to the inpatient units who seemed sicker,” she noted.
Ms. Thew said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Working with adolescents with eating disorders we saw the increased numbers of both hospitalizations and outpatient referrals during the pandemic,” said Ms. Thew. “Length of stay was higher across the nation regarding admissions for concerns of eating disorders. These patients are sicker and fewer went home after medical stabilization,” she emphasized.
“Clinicians should be more aware of the rise in patients presenting with eating disorders at younger ages to their clinics and provide early interventions to prevent severe illness and medical instability,” said Ms. Thew. Clinicians also should be more proactive in managing younger children and adolescents who express mood disorders, disordered eating, or weight loss, given the significant rise in eating disorders and mental health concerns, she said.
Additional research is needed to continue following the rate of eating disorders into 2022, said Ms. Thew. More research is needed on early interventions and recognition of eating disorders for preteens and teens to prevent severe illness, as is research on how the younger patient with an eating disorder may present differently to the primary care doctor or emergency department, she said.
“We may need to study treatment of the younger population, as they may not do as well with admissions into behavioral health facilities,” Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
Hospital admission for children with eating disorders approximately tripled during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on data from 85 patients.
Eating disorders are common among adolescents and often require hospital admission for nutritional restoration, according to May Shum of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the volume of hospital admissions for adolescents with eating disorders has increased, the researchers wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies. This increase may be driven both by interruptions in medical care and increased psychological distress, but data on changes in patient characteristics and hospitalization course are lacking, they said.
The researchers reviewed charts from patients with eating disorders admitted to a single center between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 30, 2021. The majority of the patients were female (90.6%), and White (78.8%), had restrictive eating behaviors (97.2%), and had private insurance (80.0%).
Overall, the number of monthly admissions increased from 1.4 before the onset of the pandemic to 3.6 during the pandemic (P < .001).
Length of stay increased significantly from before to during pandemic cases (12.8 days vs. 17.3 days, P = .04) and age younger than 13 years was significantly associated with a longer length of stay (P < .001).
The number of patients for whom psychotropic medications were initiated or changed increased significantly (12.5% vs. 28.3%, P = .04); as did the proportion of patients discharged to partial hospitalization, residential, or inpatient psychiatric treatment rather than discharged home with outpatient therapy (56.2% vs. 75.0%, P = .04).
No significant differences were noted in demographics, comorbidities, admission parameters, EKG abnormalities, electrolyte repletion, or tube feeding.
The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center. However, the results suggest an increase in severity of hospital admissions that have implications for use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
“In addition to an increase in hospital admissions for eating disorder management during the pandemic, longer inpatient stays of younger children with higher acuity at discharge is an added strain on hospital resources and warrants attention,” they concluded.
Considerations for younger patients
The current study is especially important at this time, Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said in an interview. “There have been reports of the rising numbers in eating disorders, but until research has been conducted, we cannot quantify the volumes,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study. “There have been many reports of the rise in mental health issues during the pandemic, so it seems accurate that the rate of eating disorders would rise,” she said. “Additionally, from a clinical perspective there seemed to be many younger-age patients with eating disorders presenting to the inpatient units who seemed sicker,” she noted.
Ms. Thew said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Working with adolescents with eating disorders we saw the increased numbers of both hospitalizations and outpatient referrals during the pandemic,” said Ms. Thew. “Length of stay was higher across the nation regarding admissions for concerns of eating disorders. These patients are sicker and fewer went home after medical stabilization,” she emphasized.
“Clinicians should be more aware of the rise in patients presenting with eating disorders at younger ages to their clinics and provide early interventions to prevent severe illness and medical instability,” said Ms. Thew. Clinicians also should be more proactive in managing younger children and adolescents who express mood disorders, disordered eating, or weight loss, given the significant rise in eating disorders and mental health concerns, she said.
Additional research is needed to continue following the rate of eating disorders into 2022, said Ms. Thew. More research is needed on early interventions and recognition of eating disorders for preteens and teens to prevent severe illness, as is research on how the younger patient with an eating disorder may present differently to the primary care doctor or emergency department, she said.
“We may need to study treatment of the younger population, as they may not do as well with admissions into behavioral health facilities,” Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
FROM PAS 2022
Substance use disorders increase risk for death from COVID-19
MADRID, Spain – – compared with the general population. Such are the findings of a line of research led by Mexican psychiatrist Nora Volkow, MD, director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
A pioneer in the use of brain imaging to investigate how substance use affects brain functions and one of Time magazine’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World,” she led the Inaugural Conference at the XXXI Congress of the Spanish Society of Clinical Pharmacology “Drugs and Actions During the Pandemic.” Dr. Volkow spoke about the effects that the current health crisis has had on drug use and the social challenges that arose from lockdowns. She also presented and discussed the results of studies being conducted at NIDA that “are aimed at reviewing what we’ve learned and what the consequences of COVID-19 have been with respect to substance abuse disorder.”
As Dr. Volkow pointed out, drugs affect much more than just the brain. “In particular, the heart, the lungs, the immune system – all of these are significantly harmed by substances like tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine. This is why, since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been worried about seeing what consequences SARS-CoV-2 was going to have on users of these substances, especially in light of the great toll this disease takes on the respiratory system and the vascular system.”
Pulmonary ‘predisposition’ and race
Dr. Volkow and her team launched several studies to get a more thorough understanding of the link between substance abuse disorders and poor COVID-19 prognoses. One of them was based on analyses from electronic health records in the United States. The purpose was to determine COVID-19 risk and outcomes in patients based on the type of use disorder (for example, alcohol, opioid, cannabis, cocaine).
“The results showed that regardless of the drug type, all users of these substances had both a higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 and a higher death rate in comparison with the rest of the population,” said Dr. Volkow. “This surprised us, because there’s no evidence that drugs themselves make the virus more infectious. However, what the results did clearly indicate to us was that using these substances was associated with behavior that put these individuals at a greater risk for infection,” Dr. Volkow explained.
“In addition,” she continued, “using, for example, tobacco or cannabis causes inflammation in the lungs. It seems that, as a result, they end up being more vulnerable to infection by COVID. And this has consequences, above all, in terms of mortality.”
Another finding was that, among patients with substance use disorders, race had the largest effect on COVID risk. “From the very start, we saw that, compared with White individuals, Black individuals showed a much higher risk of not only getting COVID, but also dying from it,” said Dr. Volkow. “Therefore, on the one hand, our data show that drug users are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and, on the other hand, they reflect that within this group, Black individuals are even more vulnerable.”
In her presentation, Dr. Volkow drew particular attention to the impact that social surroundings have on these patients and the decisive role they played in terms of vulnerability. “It’s a very complex issue, what with the various factors at play: family, social environment. ... A person living in an at-risk situation can more easily get drugs or even prescription medication, which can also be abused.”
The psychiatrist stressed that when it comes to addictive disorders (and related questions such as prevention, treatment, and social reintegration), one of the most crucial factors has to do with the individual’s social support structures. “The studies also brought to light the role that social interaction has as an inhibitory factor with regard to drug use,” said Dr. Volkow. “And indeed, adequate adherence to treatment requires that the necessary support systems be maintained.”
In the context of the pandemic, this social aspect was also key, especially concerning the high death rate among substance use disorder patients with COVID-19. “There are very significant social determinants, such as the stigma associated with these groups – a stigma that makes these individuals more likely to hesitate to seek out treatment for diseases that may be starting to take hold, in this case COVID-19.”
On that note, Dr. Volkow emphasized the importance of treating drug addicts as though they had a chronic disease in need of treatment. “In fact, the prevalence of pathologies such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and dementia is much higher in these individuals than in the general population,” she said. “However, this isn’t widely known. The data reflect that not only the prevalence of these diseases, but also the severity of the symptoms, is higher, and this has a lot to do with these individuals’ reticence when it comes to reaching out for medical care. Added to that are the effects of their economic situation and other factors, such as stress (which can trigger a relapse), lack of ready access to medications, and limited access to community support or other sources of social connection.”
Opioids and COVID-19
As for drug use during the pandemic, Dr. Volkow provided context by mentioning that in the United States, the experts and authorities have spent two decades fighting the epidemic of opioid-related drug overdoses, which has caused many deaths. “And on top of this epidemic – one that we still haven’t been able to get control of – there’s the situation brought about by COVID-19. So, we had to see the consequences of a pandemic crossing paths with an epidemic.”
The United States’s epidemic of overdose deaths started with the use of opioid painkillers, medications which are overprescribed. Another issue that the United States faces is that many drugs are contaminated with fentanyl. This contamination has caused an increase in deaths.
“In the United States, fentanyl is everywhere,” said Dr. Volkow. “And what’s more concerning: almost a third of this fentanyl comes in pills that are sold as benzodiazepines. With this comes a high risk for overdose. In line with this, we saw overdose deaths among adolescents nearly double in 1 year, an increase which is likely related to these contaminated pills. It’s a risk that’s just below the surface. We’ve got to be vigilant, because this phenomenon is expected to eventually spread to Europe. After all, these pills are very cheap, hence the rapid increase in their use.”
To provide figures on drug use and overdose deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Volkow referred to COVID-19 data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data indicate that of the 70,630 drug overdose deaths that occurred in 2019, 49,860 involved opioids (whether prescribed or illicit). “And these numbers have continued to rise, so much so that the current situation can be classified as catastrophic – because this increase has been even greater during the pandemic due to the rise in the use of all drugs,” said Dr. Volkow.
Dr. Volkow referred to an NCHS study that looked at the period between September 2020 and September 2021, finding a 15.9% increase in the number of drug overdose deaths. A breakdown of these data shows that the highest percentage corresponds to deaths from “other psychostimulants,” primarily methamphetamines (35.7%). This category is followed by deaths involving synthetic opioids, mostly illicit fentanyl (25.8%), and deaths from cocaine (13.4%).
“These figures indicate that, for the first time in history, the United States had over 100,000 overdose deaths in 1 year,” said Dr. Volkow. “This is something that has never happened. We can only infer that the pandemic had a hand in making the overdose crisis even worse than it already was.”
As Dr. Volkow explained, policies related to handling overdoses and prescribing medications have been changed in the context of COVID-19. Addiction treatment consequently has been provided through a larger number of telehealth services, and measures such as greater access to treatment for comorbid conditions, expanded access to behavioral treatments, and the establishment of mental health hotlines have been undertaken.
Children’s cognitive development
Dr. Volkow also spoke about another of NIDA’s current subjects of research: The role that damage or compromise from drugs has on the neural circuits involved in reinforcement systems. “It’s important that we make people aware of the significance of what’s at play there, because the greatest damage that can be inflicted on the brain comes from using any type of drug during adolescence. In these cases, the likelihood of having an addictive disorder as an adult significantly increases.”
Within this framework, her team has also investigated the impact of the pandemic on the cognitive development of infants under 1 year of age. One of these studies was a pilot program in which pregnant women participated. “We found that children born during the pandemic had lower cognitive development: n = 112 versus n = 554 of those born before January 2019.”
“None of the mothers or children in the study had been infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Volkow explained. “But the results clearly reflect the negative effect of the circumstances brought about by the pandemic, especially the high level of stress, the isolation, and the lack of stimuli. Another study, currently in preprint, is based on imaging. It analyzed the impact on myelination in children not exposed to COVID-19 but born during the pandemic, compared with pre-pandemic infants. The data showed significantly reduced areas of myelin development (P < .05) in those born after 2019. And the researchers didn’t find significant differences in gestation duration or birth weight.”
The longitudinal characteristics of these studies will let us see whether a change in these individuals’ social circumstances over time also brings to light cognitive changes, even the recovery of lost or underdeveloped cognitive processes, Dr. Volkow concluded.
Dr. Volkow has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID, Spain – – compared with the general population. Such are the findings of a line of research led by Mexican psychiatrist Nora Volkow, MD, director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
A pioneer in the use of brain imaging to investigate how substance use affects brain functions and one of Time magazine’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World,” she led the Inaugural Conference at the XXXI Congress of the Spanish Society of Clinical Pharmacology “Drugs and Actions During the Pandemic.” Dr. Volkow spoke about the effects that the current health crisis has had on drug use and the social challenges that arose from lockdowns. She also presented and discussed the results of studies being conducted at NIDA that “are aimed at reviewing what we’ve learned and what the consequences of COVID-19 have been with respect to substance abuse disorder.”
As Dr. Volkow pointed out, drugs affect much more than just the brain. “In particular, the heart, the lungs, the immune system – all of these are significantly harmed by substances like tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine. This is why, since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been worried about seeing what consequences SARS-CoV-2 was going to have on users of these substances, especially in light of the great toll this disease takes on the respiratory system and the vascular system.”
Pulmonary ‘predisposition’ and race
Dr. Volkow and her team launched several studies to get a more thorough understanding of the link between substance abuse disorders and poor COVID-19 prognoses. One of them was based on analyses from electronic health records in the United States. The purpose was to determine COVID-19 risk and outcomes in patients based on the type of use disorder (for example, alcohol, opioid, cannabis, cocaine).
“The results showed that regardless of the drug type, all users of these substances had both a higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 and a higher death rate in comparison with the rest of the population,” said Dr. Volkow. “This surprised us, because there’s no evidence that drugs themselves make the virus more infectious. However, what the results did clearly indicate to us was that using these substances was associated with behavior that put these individuals at a greater risk for infection,” Dr. Volkow explained.
“In addition,” she continued, “using, for example, tobacco or cannabis causes inflammation in the lungs. It seems that, as a result, they end up being more vulnerable to infection by COVID. And this has consequences, above all, in terms of mortality.”
Another finding was that, among patients with substance use disorders, race had the largest effect on COVID risk. “From the very start, we saw that, compared with White individuals, Black individuals showed a much higher risk of not only getting COVID, but also dying from it,” said Dr. Volkow. “Therefore, on the one hand, our data show that drug users are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and, on the other hand, they reflect that within this group, Black individuals are even more vulnerable.”
In her presentation, Dr. Volkow drew particular attention to the impact that social surroundings have on these patients and the decisive role they played in terms of vulnerability. “It’s a very complex issue, what with the various factors at play: family, social environment. ... A person living in an at-risk situation can more easily get drugs or even prescription medication, which can also be abused.”
The psychiatrist stressed that when it comes to addictive disorders (and related questions such as prevention, treatment, and social reintegration), one of the most crucial factors has to do with the individual’s social support structures. “The studies also brought to light the role that social interaction has as an inhibitory factor with regard to drug use,” said Dr. Volkow. “And indeed, adequate adherence to treatment requires that the necessary support systems be maintained.”
In the context of the pandemic, this social aspect was also key, especially concerning the high death rate among substance use disorder patients with COVID-19. “There are very significant social determinants, such as the stigma associated with these groups – a stigma that makes these individuals more likely to hesitate to seek out treatment for diseases that may be starting to take hold, in this case COVID-19.”
On that note, Dr. Volkow emphasized the importance of treating drug addicts as though they had a chronic disease in need of treatment. “In fact, the prevalence of pathologies such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and dementia is much higher in these individuals than in the general population,” she said. “However, this isn’t widely known. The data reflect that not only the prevalence of these diseases, but also the severity of the symptoms, is higher, and this has a lot to do with these individuals’ reticence when it comes to reaching out for medical care. Added to that are the effects of their economic situation and other factors, such as stress (which can trigger a relapse), lack of ready access to medications, and limited access to community support or other sources of social connection.”
Opioids and COVID-19
As for drug use during the pandemic, Dr. Volkow provided context by mentioning that in the United States, the experts and authorities have spent two decades fighting the epidemic of opioid-related drug overdoses, which has caused many deaths. “And on top of this epidemic – one that we still haven’t been able to get control of – there’s the situation brought about by COVID-19. So, we had to see the consequences of a pandemic crossing paths with an epidemic.”
The United States’s epidemic of overdose deaths started with the use of opioid painkillers, medications which are overprescribed. Another issue that the United States faces is that many drugs are contaminated with fentanyl. This contamination has caused an increase in deaths.
“In the United States, fentanyl is everywhere,” said Dr. Volkow. “And what’s more concerning: almost a third of this fentanyl comes in pills that are sold as benzodiazepines. With this comes a high risk for overdose. In line with this, we saw overdose deaths among adolescents nearly double in 1 year, an increase which is likely related to these contaminated pills. It’s a risk that’s just below the surface. We’ve got to be vigilant, because this phenomenon is expected to eventually spread to Europe. After all, these pills are very cheap, hence the rapid increase in their use.”
To provide figures on drug use and overdose deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Volkow referred to COVID-19 data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data indicate that of the 70,630 drug overdose deaths that occurred in 2019, 49,860 involved opioids (whether prescribed or illicit). “And these numbers have continued to rise, so much so that the current situation can be classified as catastrophic – because this increase has been even greater during the pandemic due to the rise in the use of all drugs,” said Dr. Volkow.
Dr. Volkow referred to an NCHS study that looked at the period between September 2020 and September 2021, finding a 15.9% increase in the number of drug overdose deaths. A breakdown of these data shows that the highest percentage corresponds to deaths from “other psychostimulants,” primarily methamphetamines (35.7%). This category is followed by deaths involving synthetic opioids, mostly illicit fentanyl (25.8%), and deaths from cocaine (13.4%).
“These figures indicate that, for the first time in history, the United States had over 100,000 overdose deaths in 1 year,” said Dr. Volkow. “This is something that has never happened. We can only infer that the pandemic had a hand in making the overdose crisis even worse than it already was.”
As Dr. Volkow explained, policies related to handling overdoses and prescribing medications have been changed in the context of COVID-19. Addiction treatment consequently has been provided through a larger number of telehealth services, and measures such as greater access to treatment for comorbid conditions, expanded access to behavioral treatments, and the establishment of mental health hotlines have been undertaken.
Children’s cognitive development
Dr. Volkow also spoke about another of NIDA’s current subjects of research: The role that damage or compromise from drugs has on the neural circuits involved in reinforcement systems. “It’s important that we make people aware of the significance of what’s at play there, because the greatest damage that can be inflicted on the brain comes from using any type of drug during adolescence. In these cases, the likelihood of having an addictive disorder as an adult significantly increases.”
Within this framework, her team has also investigated the impact of the pandemic on the cognitive development of infants under 1 year of age. One of these studies was a pilot program in which pregnant women participated. “We found that children born during the pandemic had lower cognitive development: n = 112 versus n = 554 of those born before January 2019.”
“None of the mothers or children in the study had been infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Volkow explained. “But the results clearly reflect the negative effect of the circumstances brought about by the pandemic, especially the high level of stress, the isolation, and the lack of stimuli. Another study, currently in preprint, is based on imaging. It analyzed the impact on myelination in children not exposed to COVID-19 but born during the pandemic, compared with pre-pandemic infants. The data showed significantly reduced areas of myelin development (P < .05) in those born after 2019. And the researchers didn’t find significant differences in gestation duration or birth weight.”
The longitudinal characteristics of these studies will let us see whether a change in these individuals’ social circumstances over time also brings to light cognitive changes, even the recovery of lost or underdeveloped cognitive processes, Dr. Volkow concluded.
Dr. Volkow has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID, Spain – – compared with the general population. Such are the findings of a line of research led by Mexican psychiatrist Nora Volkow, MD, director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
A pioneer in the use of brain imaging to investigate how substance use affects brain functions and one of Time magazine’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World,” she led the Inaugural Conference at the XXXI Congress of the Spanish Society of Clinical Pharmacology “Drugs and Actions During the Pandemic.” Dr. Volkow spoke about the effects that the current health crisis has had on drug use and the social challenges that arose from lockdowns. She also presented and discussed the results of studies being conducted at NIDA that “are aimed at reviewing what we’ve learned and what the consequences of COVID-19 have been with respect to substance abuse disorder.”
As Dr. Volkow pointed out, drugs affect much more than just the brain. “In particular, the heart, the lungs, the immune system – all of these are significantly harmed by substances like tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine. This is why, since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been worried about seeing what consequences SARS-CoV-2 was going to have on users of these substances, especially in light of the great toll this disease takes on the respiratory system and the vascular system.”
Pulmonary ‘predisposition’ and race
Dr. Volkow and her team launched several studies to get a more thorough understanding of the link between substance abuse disorders and poor COVID-19 prognoses. One of them was based on analyses from electronic health records in the United States. The purpose was to determine COVID-19 risk and outcomes in patients based on the type of use disorder (for example, alcohol, opioid, cannabis, cocaine).
“The results showed that regardless of the drug type, all users of these substances had both a higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 and a higher death rate in comparison with the rest of the population,” said Dr. Volkow. “This surprised us, because there’s no evidence that drugs themselves make the virus more infectious. However, what the results did clearly indicate to us was that using these substances was associated with behavior that put these individuals at a greater risk for infection,” Dr. Volkow explained.
“In addition,” she continued, “using, for example, tobacco or cannabis causes inflammation in the lungs. It seems that, as a result, they end up being more vulnerable to infection by COVID. And this has consequences, above all, in terms of mortality.”
Another finding was that, among patients with substance use disorders, race had the largest effect on COVID risk. “From the very start, we saw that, compared with White individuals, Black individuals showed a much higher risk of not only getting COVID, but also dying from it,” said Dr. Volkow. “Therefore, on the one hand, our data show that drug users are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and, on the other hand, they reflect that within this group, Black individuals are even more vulnerable.”
In her presentation, Dr. Volkow drew particular attention to the impact that social surroundings have on these patients and the decisive role they played in terms of vulnerability. “It’s a very complex issue, what with the various factors at play: family, social environment. ... A person living in an at-risk situation can more easily get drugs or even prescription medication, which can also be abused.”
The psychiatrist stressed that when it comes to addictive disorders (and related questions such as prevention, treatment, and social reintegration), one of the most crucial factors has to do with the individual’s social support structures. “The studies also brought to light the role that social interaction has as an inhibitory factor with regard to drug use,” said Dr. Volkow. “And indeed, adequate adherence to treatment requires that the necessary support systems be maintained.”
In the context of the pandemic, this social aspect was also key, especially concerning the high death rate among substance use disorder patients with COVID-19. “There are very significant social determinants, such as the stigma associated with these groups – a stigma that makes these individuals more likely to hesitate to seek out treatment for diseases that may be starting to take hold, in this case COVID-19.”
On that note, Dr. Volkow emphasized the importance of treating drug addicts as though they had a chronic disease in need of treatment. “In fact, the prevalence of pathologies such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and dementia is much higher in these individuals than in the general population,” she said. “However, this isn’t widely known. The data reflect that not only the prevalence of these diseases, but also the severity of the symptoms, is higher, and this has a lot to do with these individuals’ reticence when it comes to reaching out for medical care. Added to that are the effects of their economic situation and other factors, such as stress (which can trigger a relapse), lack of ready access to medications, and limited access to community support or other sources of social connection.”
Opioids and COVID-19
As for drug use during the pandemic, Dr. Volkow provided context by mentioning that in the United States, the experts and authorities have spent two decades fighting the epidemic of opioid-related drug overdoses, which has caused many deaths. “And on top of this epidemic – one that we still haven’t been able to get control of – there’s the situation brought about by COVID-19. So, we had to see the consequences of a pandemic crossing paths with an epidemic.”
The United States’s epidemic of overdose deaths started with the use of opioid painkillers, medications which are overprescribed. Another issue that the United States faces is that many drugs are contaminated with fentanyl. This contamination has caused an increase in deaths.
“In the United States, fentanyl is everywhere,” said Dr. Volkow. “And what’s more concerning: almost a third of this fentanyl comes in pills that are sold as benzodiazepines. With this comes a high risk for overdose. In line with this, we saw overdose deaths among adolescents nearly double in 1 year, an increase which is likely related to these contaminated pills. It’s a risk that’s just below the surface. We’ve got to be vigilant, because this phenomenon is expected to eventually spread to Europe. After all, these pills are very cheap, hence the rapid increase in their use.”
To provide figures on drug use and overdose deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Volkow referred to COVID-19 data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data indicate that of the 70,630 drug overdose deaths that occurred in 2019, 49,860 involved opioids (whether prescribed or illicit). “And these numbers have continued to rise, so much so that the current situation can be classified as catastrophic – because this increase has been even greater during the pandemic due to the rise in the use of all drugs,” said Dr. Volkow.
Dr. Volkow referred to an NCHS study that looked at the period between September 2020 and September 2021, finding a 15.9% increase in the number of drug overdose deaths. A breakdown of these data shows that the highest percentage corresponds to deaths from “other psychostimulants,” primarily methamphetamines (35.7%). This category is followed by deaths involving synthetic opioids, mostly illicit fentanyl (25.8%), and deaths from cocaine (13.4%).
“These figures indicate that, for the first time in history, the United States had over 100,000 overdose deaths in 1 year,” said Dr. Volkow. “This is something that has never happened. We can only infer that the pandemic had a hand in making the overdose crisis even worse than it already was.”
As Dr. Volkow explained, policies related to handling overdoses and prescribing medications have been changed in the context of COVID-19. Addiction treatment consequently has been provided through a larger number of telehealth services, and measures such as greater access to treatment for comorbid conditions, expanded access to behavioral treatments, and the establishment of mental health hotlines have been undertaken.
Children’s cognitive development
Dr. Volkow also spoke about another of NIDA’s current subjects of research: The role that damage or compromise from drugs has on the neural circuits involved in reinforcement systems. “It’s important that we make people aware of the significance of what’s at play there, because the greatest damage that can be inflicted on the brain comes from using any type of drug during adolescence. In these cases, the likelihood of having an addictive disorder as an adult significantly increases.”
Within this framework, her team has also investigated the impact of the pandemic on the cognitive development of infants under 1 year of age. One of these studies was a pilot program in which pregnant women participated. “We found that children born during the pandemic had lower cognitive development: n = 112 versus n = 554 of those born before January 2019.”
“None of the mothers or children in the study had been infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Volkow explained. “But the results clearly reflect the negative effect of the circumstances brought about by the pandemic, especially the high level of stress, the isolation, and the lack of stimuli. Another study, currently in preprint, is based on imaging. It analyzed the impact on myelination in children not exposed to COVID-19 but born during the pandemic, compared with pre-pandemic infants. The data showed significantly reduced areas of myelin development (P < .05) in those born after 2019. And the researchers didn’t find significant differences in gestation duration or birth weight.”
The longitudinal characteristics of these studies will let us see whether a change in these individuals’ social circumstances over time also brings to light cognitive changes, even the recovery of lost or underdeveloped cognitive processes, Dr. Volkow concluded.
Dr. Volkow has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNUAL MEETING OF SPANISH SOCIETY OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY