Clinical Psychiatry News

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

In 2014, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, Kati Markowitz decided to switch to vaping. She had heard the newer electronic cigarettes might be less harmful. And, at the time, she said, she wasn’t aware of other options to try to quit smoking.

For 7 years, she vaped every day.

Then Ms. Markowitz received news she’d hoped never to hear: She had lung cancer. A nodule detected in a CT scan had grown. She was scheduled for treatment – the removal of an entire lobe from her right lung. But first, she said, her surgeon told her she had to quit vaping, which reduces the risk for post-operative complications and enables a healthy recovery.

Ms. Markowitz had thought switching to vaping would be less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Now, she no longer believes that’s true.

“Did I fool myself by hoping to get lucky and not have any bad repercussions? Yes, I did,” Ms. Markowitz said, adding that she wonders if vaping contributed to her lung cancer or if she’ll experience other negative health effects in the future.

Researchers are divided on if e-cigarettes are as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement therapies like gums and lozenges. They also say more research is needed on the long-term health impacts of vaping to ultimately determine if vapes are a safe replacement for cigarettes.

“There is scientific research to support vaping as a cessation tool, but we wouldn’t use it as a first line of defense because we still need longitudinal studies to understand the long-term risk of e-cigarettes,” said Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, Eatontown, N.J. “We also need research to understand exactly how we could use e-cigarettes as a cessation device.”
 

Vaping to quit

The first prototypes of e-cigarettes were developed in the 1930s, although what are now known as vapes weren’t sold by manufacturers until the 2000s in the United States, following an invention by a former health official in China. The vape was touted by both researchers and manufacturers over the years of development as a way to quit smoking cigarettes.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping and accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry, has compiled more than 13,000 testimonials from people who say vaping helped them give up smoking.

Studies show mixed results that using vapes can help traditional smokers quit.

A November 2022 Cochrane review showed a “high certainty of evidence that people are more likely to stop smoking traditional cigarettes for at least 6 months using e-cigarettes, or ‘vapes,’ than using nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums.” The meta-analysis examined 78 studies with more than 22,000 participants. And a 2019 study with 886 participants, published in the New England Journal Medicine, found smokers who tried vaping to quit were twice as likely after a year to have stopped smoking cigarettes than those who used nicotine replacement therapy.

“In terms of the global research, it’s pretty clear that vaping can help smokers quit,” said Peter Shields, MD, a professor in the department of internal medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who specializes in the treatment of lung cancer.

But a 2013 study published in the Lancet, and another from the Lancet in 2019, found only a modest improvement in cessation outcomes when participants used e-cigarettes paired with patches, compared with patches alone.

“For a disruptive technology that was supposed to end combustible tobacco use, there seems very little large-scale disruption,” said Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, co-director of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond.

Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, MPH, director of clinical research at the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, pointed to research that shows a portion of people who start vaping to quit smoking end up using both products – or become so-called “dual” users.

“I do think there is fairly high-quality evidence that vaping can lead to more cessation, but at the tradeoff of more long-term dual users and more overall nicotine addiction,” Dr. Blaha said. “Vaping remains a third-line clinical tool after nicotine replacement therapy and FDA-approved cessation medications.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any e-cigarette or vaping device for smoking cessation, like it has for patches and gums, which means manufacturers cannot market their products as helping tobacco smokers quit.

“There is potential for vaping as a cessation device, but the evidence so far is too small to say for sure that vaping is a more effective tool than others for combustible tobacco cessation,” Ms. Hanna, from RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, said.
 

Reducing harm and improving health?

Vapes have also been touted as a boon to individual and public health since cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and disability in the United States, responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Quitting smoking lowers the risk of developing various cancers, heart disease, stroke, and other serious diseases. The aim of nicotine replacement therapy is to help smokers quit by gradually providing the body with smaller doses of nicotine over time, without exposing the body to toxic chemicals found in cigarettes.

“No one should say that e-cigarettes are safe, but compared to cigarettes, the data is consistent: They are not as harmful, and when a smoker switches, it’s better for them,” Dr. Shields said. “Like with other nicotine replacement therapies, if there is a risk that someone stops vaping and returns to smoking, I would rather have them as long-term vapers since it is generally considered to be less harmful than combustible tobacco.”

The FDA has allowed a handful of companies to market their electronic nicotine delivery systems as safer than traditional cigarettes by gaining approval through the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications process. In 2021, the agency announced its first PMTA authorization of an electronic cigarette to R.J. Reynolds for three of its tobacco-flavored vaping products. Regulators approved more products from three additional companies in 2022.

But the FDA has also denied others, including two products in 2023 from R.J. Reynolds, stating that, “the applications lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Questions remain among some researchers on the effects of vaping if used long term. Data on the health effects of vapes are just beginning to emerge and are mainly from studies of animals or cells. Measuring health effects among vape users will entail decades more of study, since Americans only gained access to the products in the 2000s.

Dr. Eissenberg said vaping likely does not cause the same diseases as cigarette smoking, but that does not mean they are not harmful. Ingredients found in e-cigarettes, such as heated propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavors, have only been used as food ingredients. The potential diseases caused by vapes are still unknown, because inhaling these heated ingredients is new. He also said he had “no issue” with an adult smoker vaping to help them quit smoking – as long they do so for a short period.

“I am very concerned that long-term use in adults could lead to considerable disease and death,” Dr. Eissenberg said. “Simply put, the human lung evolved for one purpose: gas exchange of oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Anything else that enters the lung is a challenge to the organ.”

But Kenneth Warner, PhD, dean emeritus at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said breaking the addiction to traditional cigarettes could reduce high rates of lung cancer in lower income communities where rates of smoking are comparatively high.

About three times as many Americans smoked (12.6%) than vaped (4.7%) in 2021, but those who live in households with lower incomes are more likely to smoke. According to the CDC, use of tobacco is higher among adults who were uninsured (27.3%) or who had Medicaid coverage (28.6%) than among those with private insurance (16.4%). People with annual family incomes of less than $12,500 also are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those with family incomes of $50,000 or more. Public health researchers have attributed those disparities in part to higher rates of smoking in lower-income households.

Dr. Warner said many lower-income and other Americans may never quit smoking cigarettes because they believe making the switch to e-cigarettes will not benefit their health. A 2022 study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that the percent of Americans who thought vaping was more harmful than smoking quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, from 6.8% to 28.3%. A third of respondents thought vaping was as harmful as smoking.

“We’ve convinced a large percentage of the American public that vaping is as harmful as smoking when it could be helping people quit smoking,” Dr. Warner said. “People are dying right now.”

Ms. Markowitz did quit smoking by taking up vaping. But now she questions if her lung cancer prognosis would have been delayed, or even avoided, if she’d tried a traditional method like a lozenge or gum instead. She vaped once an hour for most of her 7 years of using the devices.

“For people who are trying to stop smoking, I would recommend something like the patch instead,” Ms. Markowitz said.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives receives funding from the vaping industry. Dr. Blaha, Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Shields, and Dr. Warner reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. Dr. Blaha and Dr. Warner receive tobacco-related research funding from the FDA. Dr. Warner is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

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

In 2014, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, Kati Markowitz decided to switch to vaping. She had heard the newer electronic cigarettes might be less harmful. And, at the time, she said, she wasn’t aware of other options to try to quit smoking.

For 7 years, she vaped every day.

Then Ms. Markowitz received news she’d hoped never to hear: She had lung cancer. A nodule detected in a CT scan had grown. She was scheduled for treatment – the removal of an entire lobe from her right lung. But first, she said, her surgeon told her she had to quit vaping, which reduces the risk for post-operative complications and enables a healthy recovery.

Ms. Markowitz had thought switching to vaping would be less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Now, she no longer believes that’s true.

“Did I fool myself by hoping to get lucky and not have any bad repercussions? Yes, I did,” Ms. Markowitz said, adding that she wonders if vaping contributed to her lung cancer or if she’ll experience other negative health effects in the future.

Researchers are divided on if e-cigarettes are as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement therapies like gums and lozenges. They also say more research is needed on the long-term health impacts of vaping to ultimately determine if vapes are a safe replacement for cigarettes.

“There is scientific research to support vaping as a cessation tool, but we wouldn’t use it as a first line of defense because we still need longitudinal studies to understand the long-term risk of e-cigarettes,” said Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, Eatontown, N.J. “We also need research to understand exactly how we could use e-cigarettes as a cessation device.”
 

Vaping to quit

The first prototypes of e-cigarettes were developed in the 1930s, although what are now known as vapes weren’t sold by manufacturers until the 2000s in the United States, following an invention by a former health official in China. The vape was touted by both researchers and manufacturers over the years of development as a way to quit smoking cigarettes.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping and accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry, has compiled more than 13,000 testimonials from people who say vaping helped them give up smoking.

Studies show mixed results that using vapes can help traditional smokers quit.

A November 2022 Cochrane review showed a “high certainty of evidence that people are more likely to stop smoking traditional cigarettes for at least 6 months using e-cigarettes, or ‘vapes,’ than using nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums.” The meta-analysis examined 78 studies with more than 22,000 participants. And a 2019 study with 886 participants, published in the New England Journal Medicine, found smokers who tried vaping to quit were twice as likely after a year to have stopped smoking cigarettes than those who used nicotine replacement therapy.

“In terms of the global research, it’s pretty clear that vaping can help smokers quit,” said Peter Shields, MD, a professor in the department of internal medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who specializes in the treatment of lung cancer.

But a 2013 study published in the Lancet, and another from the Lancet in 2019, found only a modest improvement in cessation outcomes when participants used e-cigarettes paired with patches, compared with patches alone.

“For a disruptive technology that was supposed to end combustible tobacco use, there seems very little large-scale disruption,” said Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, co-director of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond.

Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, MPH, director of clinical research at the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, pointed to research that shows a portion of people who start vaping to quit smoking end up using both products – or become so-called “dual” users.

“I do think there is fairly high-quality evidence that vaping can lead to more cessation, but at the tradeoff of more long-term dual users and more overall nicotine addiction,” Dr. Blaha said. “Vaping remains a third-line clinical tool after nicotine replacement therapy and FDA-approved cessation medications.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any e-cigarette or vaping device for smoking cessation, like it has for patches and gums, which means manufacturers cannot market their products as helping tobacco smokers quit.

“There is potential for vaping as a cessation device, but the evidence so far is too small to say for sure that vaping is a more effective tool than others for combustible tobacco cessation,” Ms. Hanna, from RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, said.
 

Reducing harm and improving health?

Vapes have also been touted as a boon to individual and public health since cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and disability in the United States, responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Quitting smoking lowers the risk of developing various cancers, heart disease, stroke, and other serious diseases. The aim of nicotine replacement therapy is to help smokers quit by gradually providing the body with smaller doses of nicotine over time, without exposing the body to toxic chemicals found in cigarettes.

“No one should say that e-cigarettes are safe, but compared to cigarettes, the data is consistent: They are not as harmful, and when a smoker switches, it’s better for them,” Dr. Shields said. “Like with other nicotine replacement therapies, if there is a risk that someone stops vaping and returns to smoking, I would rather have them as long-term vapers since it is generally considered to be less harmful than combustible tobacco.”

The FDA has allowed a handful of companies to market their electronic nicotine delivery systems as safer than traditional cigarettes by gaining approval through the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications process. In 2021, the agency announced its first PMTA authorization of an electronic cigarette to R.J. Reynolds for three of its tobacco-flavored vaping products. Regulators approved more products from three additional companies in 2022.

But the FDA has also denied others, including two products in 2023 from R.J. Reynolds, stating that, “the applications lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Questions remain among some researchers on the effects of vaping if used long term. Data on the health effects of vapes are just beginning to emerge and are mainly from studies of animals or cells. Measuring health effects among vape users will entail decades more of study, since Americans only gained access to the products in the 2000s.

Dr. Eissenberg said vaping likely does not cause the same diseases as cigarette smoking, but that does not mean they are not harmful. Ingredients found in e-cigarettes, such as heated propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavors, have only been used as food ingredients. The potential diseases caused by vapes are still unknown, because inhaling these heated ingredients is new. He also said he had “no issue” with an adult smoker vaping to help them quit smoking – as long they do so for a short period.

“I am very concerned that long-term use in adults could lead to considerable disease and death,” Dr. Eissenberg said. “Simply put, the human lung evolved for one purpose: gas exchange of oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Anything else that enters the lung is a challenge to the organ.”

But Kenneth Warner, PhD, dean emeritus at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said breaking the addiction to traditional cigarettes could reduce high rates of lung cancer in lower income communities where rates of smoking are comparatively high.

About three times as many Americans smoked (12.6%) than vaped (4.7%) in 2021, but those who live in households with lower incomes are more likely to smoke. According to the CDC, use of tobacco is higher among adults who were uninsured (27.3%) or who had Medicaid coverage (28.6%) than among those with private insurance (16.4%). People with annual family incomes of less than $12,500 also are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those with family incomes of $50,000 or more. Public health researchers have attributed those disparities in part to higher rates of smoking in lower-income households.

Dr. Warner said many lower-income and other Americans may never quit smoking cigarettes because they believe making the switch to e-cigarettes will not benefit their health. A 2022 study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that the percent of Americans who thought vaping was more harmful than smoking quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, from 6.8% to 28.3%. A third of respondents thought vaping was as harmful as smoking.

“We’ve convinced a large percentage of the American public that vaping is as harmful as smoking when it could be helping people quit smoking,” Dr. Warner said. “People are dying right now.”

Ms. Markowitz did quit smoking by taking up vaping. But now she questions if her lung cancer prognosis would have been delayed, or even avoided, if she’d tried a traditional method like a lozenge or gum instead. She vaped once an hour for most of her 7 years of using the devices.

“For people who are trying to stop smoking, I would recommend something like the patch instead,” Ms. Markowitz said.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives receives funding from the vaping industry. Dr. Blaha, Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Shields, and Dr. Warner reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. Dr. Blaha and Dr. Warner receive tobacco-related research funding from the FDA. Dr. Warner is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

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

In 2014, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, Kati Markowitz decided to switch to vaping. She had heard the newer electronic cigarettes might be less harmful. And, at the time, she said, she wasn’t aware of other options to try to quit smoking.

For 7 years, she vaped every day.

Then Ms. Markowitz received news she’d hoped never to hear: She had lung cancer. A nodule detected in a CT scan had grown. She was scheduled for treatment – the removal of an entire lobe from her right lung. But first, she said, her surgeon told her she had to quit vaping, which reduces the risk for post-operative complications and enables a healthy recovery.

Ms. Markowitz had thought switching to vaping would be less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Now, she no longer believes that’s true.

“Did I fool myself by hoping to get lucky and not have any bad repercussions? Yes, I did,” Ms. Markowitz said, adding that she wonders if vaping contributed to her lung cancer or if she’ll experience other negative health effects in the future.

Researchers are divided on if e-cigarettes are as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement therapies like gums and lozenges. They also say more research is needed on the long-term health impacts of vaping to ultimately determine if vapes are a safe replacement for cigarettes.

“There is scientific research to support vaping as a cessation tool, but we wouldn’t use it as a first line of defense because we still need longitudinal studies to understand the long-term risk of e-cigarettes,” said Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, Eatontown, N.J. “We also need research to understand exactly how we could use e-cigarettes as a cessation device.”
 

Vaping to quit

The first prototypes of e-cigarettes were developed in the 1930s, although what are now known as vapes weren’t sold by manufacturers until the 2000s in the United States, following an invention by a former health official in China. The vape was touted by both researchers and manufacturers over the years of development as a way to quit smoking cigarettes.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping and accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry, has compiled more than 13,000 testimonials from people who say vaping helped them give up smoking.

Studies show mixed results that using vapes can help traditional smokers quit.

A November 2022 Cochrane review showed a “high certainty of evidence that people are more likely to stop smoking traditional cigarettes for at least 6 months using e-cigarettes, or ‘vapes,’ than using nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums.” The meta-analysis examined 78 studies with more than 22,000 participants. And a 2019 study with 886 participants, published in the New England Journal Medicine, found smokers who tried vaping to quit were twice as likely after a year to have stopped smoking cigarettes than those who used nicotine replacement therapy.

“In terms of the global research, it’s pretty clear that vaping can help smokers quit,” said Peter Shields, MD, a professor in the department of internal medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who specializes in the treatment of lung cancer.

But a 2013 study published in the Lancet, and another from the Lancet in 2019, found only a modest improvement in cessation outcomes when participants used e-cigarettes paired with patches, compared with patches alone.

“For a disruptive technology that was supposed to end combustible tobacco use, there seems very little large-scale disruption,” said Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, co-director of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond.

Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, MPH, director of clinical research at the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, pointed to research that shows a portion of people who start vaping to quit smoking end up using both products – or become so-called “dual” users.

“I do think there is fairly high-quality evidence that vaping can lead to more cessation, but at the tradeoff of more long-term dual users and more overall nicotine addiction,” Dr. Blaha said. “Vaping remains a third-line clinical tool after nicotine replacement therapy and FDA-approved cessation medications.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any e-cigarette or vaping device for smoking cessation, like it has for patches and gums, which means manufacturers cannot market their products as helping tobacco smokers quit.

“There is potential for vaping as a cessation device, but the evidence so far is too small to say for sure that vaping is a more effective tool than others for combustible tobacco cessation,” Ms. Hanna, from RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, said.
 

Reducing harm and improving health?

Vapes have also been touted as a boon to individual and public health since cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and disability in the United States, responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Quitting smoking lowers the risk of developing various cancers, heart disease, stroke, and other serious diseases. The aim of nicotine replacement therapy is to help smokers quit by gradually providing the body with smaller doses of nicotine over time, without exposing the body to toxic chemicals found in cigarettes.

“No one should say that e-cigarettes are safe, but compared to cigarettes, the data is consistent: They are not as harmful, and when a smoker switches, it’s better for them,” Dr. Shields said. “Like with other nicotine replacement therapies, if there is a risk that someone stops vaping and returns to smoking, I would rather have them as long-term vapers since it is generally considered to be less harmful than combustible tobacco.”

The FDA has allowed a handful of companies to market their electronic nicotine delivery systems as safer than traditional cigarettes by gaining approval through the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications process. In 2021, the agency announced its first PMTA authorization of an electronic cigarette to R.J. Reynolds for three of its tobacco-flavored vaping products. Regulators approved more products from three additional companies in 2022.

But the FDA has also denied others, including two products in 2023 from R.J. Reynolds, stating that, “the applications lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Questions remain among some researchers on the effects of vaping if used long term. Data on the health effects of vapes are just beginning to emerge and are mainly from studies of animals or cells. Measuring health effects among vape users will entail decades more of study, since Americans only gained access to the products in the 2000s.

Dr. Eissenberg said vaping likely does not cause the same diseases as cigarette smoking, but that does not mean they are not harmful. Ingredients found in e-cigarettes, such as heated propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavors, have only been used as food ingredients. The potential diseases caused by vapes are still unknown, because inhaling these heated ingredients is new. He also said he had “no issue” with an adult smoker vaping to help them quit smoking – as long they do so for a short period.

“I am very concerned that long-term use in adults could lead to considerable disease and death,” Dr. Eissenberg said. “Simply put, the human lung evolved for one purpose: gas exchange of oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Anything else that enters the lung is a challenge to the organ.”

But Kenneth Warner, PhD, dean emeritus at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said breaking the addiction to traditional cigarettes could reduce high rates of lung cancer in lower income communities where rates of smoking are comparatively high.

About three times as many Americans smoked (12.6%) than vaped (4.7%) in 2021, but those who live in households with lower incomes are more likely to smoke. According to the CDC, use of tobacco is higher among adults who were uninsured (27.3%) or who had Medicaid coverage (28.6%) than among those with private insurance (16.4%). People with annual family incomes of less than $12,500 also are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those with family incomes of $50,000 or more. Public health researchers have attributed those disparities in part to higher rates of smoking in lower-income households.

Dr. Warner said many lower-income and other Americans may never quit smoking cigarettes because they believe making the switch to e-cigarettes will not benefit their health. A 2022 study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that the percent of Americans who thought vaping was more harmful than smoking quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, from 6.8% to 28.3%. A third of respondents thought vaping was as harmful as smoking.

“We’ve convinced a large percentage of the American public that vaping is as harmful as smoking when it could be helping people quit smoking,” Dr. Warner said. “People are dying right now.”

Ms. Markowitz did quit smoking by taking up vaping. But now she questions if her lung cancer prognosis would have been delayed, or even avoided, if she’d tried a traditional method like a lozenge or gum instead. She vaped once an hour for most of her 7 years of using the devices.

“For people who are trying to stop smoking, I would recommend something like the patch instead,” Ms. Markowitz said.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives receives funding from the vaping industry. Dr. Blaha, Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Shields, and Dr. Warner reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. Dr. Blaha and Dr. Warner receive tobacco-related research funding from the FDA. Dr. Warner is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

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

Memantine, a drug typically used to treat symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, is linked to a significant reduction in symptoms of trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, new research shows.

Results from the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed that 61% of participants who received memantine were “much or very much improved,” versus 8% in the placebo group.

“Memantine was far more effective than placebo,” lead investigator Jon Grant, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said in an interview. “However, while subjects responded favorably, that didn’t necessarily mean there were no symptoms.”

The study was published online  in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underrecognized, disabling

The investigators noted that trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder are underrecognized and are often disabling conditions. However, the researchers pointed out that with prevalence rates of 1.7% for trichotillomania and 2.1% for skin-picking disorder, they are not uncommon.

Behavioral therapy that attempts to reverse these habits is considered first-line treatment, but trained therapists are difficult to find. In addition, the investigators wrote that currently, there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for either disorder, and pharmacologic clinical trials are relatively uncommon.

The existing data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies support the use of the antipsychotic olanzapine, the tricyclic antidepressant clomipramine, and the supplement N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC). Dr. Grant also noted that previous drug trials involving patients with trichotillomania have been very short in duration.

Prior research has implicated the glutamate system in repetitive motor habits and the urges that drive them. Memantine, a glutamate receptor antagonist, targets excessive glutamatergic drive. To investigate whether this medication may be beneficial for patients with trichotillomania and skin-picking disorders, the investigators conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

The study included 100 adults (86 women; mean age, 31.4) with trichotillomania, skin-picking disorder, or both; participants received memantine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 45) for 8 weeks; they received memantine 10 mg or placebo for the first 2 weeks, then 20 mg for the next 6 weeks.

The researchers, who were blinded to assignment, assessed participants every 2 weeks using the National Institute of Mental Health Trichotillomania Symptom Severity Scale, which was modified to include questions for skin-picking disorder.

The team also tracked symptoms and behaviors using additional scales, including the Sheehan Disability Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale.

At the study’s conclusion, 79 patients remained. Of those, 26 of the 43 participants in the memantine group were “very much” or “much” improved (61%), versus 3 of 36 (8%) in the placebo group. (P < .0001)

Six participants in the memantine group experienced complete remission of symptoms, compared with one in the placebo group. There were no differences between the study groups in terms of adverse events.

Study limitations included the relatively short length of the trial for what should be considered a chronic disease, as well as the inclusion of only mildly to moderately symptomatic participants.

Dr. Grant said that he would like to study how memantine works in combination with behavioral therapy.
 

‘Two great options’

Katharine Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has been using memantine for “quite some time” to treat her patients with skin-picking disorder, adding that she uses higher doses of the drug than were tested in the study.

She noted that both NAC and memantine affect glutamate, an amino acid in the brain that is likely involved in repetitive physical or motor habits, such as hair pulling and skin picking.

“The good news is that we have two great options” for the treatment of trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, said Dr. Phillips, and that both are easy to tolerate.

Future research should focus on longer trials of memantine and at higher doses, as well as other glutamate modulators, she said.

The study was funded by departmental research funds at the University of Chicago. Dr. Grant reported receiving research funding from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and Janssen, as well as yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for his role as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies. He has also received royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, McGraw Hill, Oxford University Press, and WW Norton. Dr. Phillips reported receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing and an honorarium from the Merck Manual.

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

Memantine, a drug typically used to treat symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, is linked to a significant reduction in symptoms of trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, new research shows.

Results from the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed that 61% of participants who received memantine were “much or very much improved,” versus 8% in the placebo group.

“Memantine was far more effective than placebo,” lead investigator Jon Grant, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said in an interview. “However, while subjects responded favorably, that didn’t necessarily mean there were no symptoms.”

The study was published online  in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underrecognized, disabling

The investigators noted that trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder are underrecognized and are often disabling conditions. However, the researchers pointed out that with prevalence rates of 1.7% for trichotillomania and 2.1% for skin-picking disorder, they are not uncommon.

Behavioral therapy that attempts to reverse these habits is considered first-line treatment, but trained therapists are difficult to find. In addition, the investigators wrote that currently, there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for either disorder, and pharmacologic clinical trials are relatively uncommon.

The existing data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies support the use of the antipsychotic olanzapine, the tricyclic antidepressant clomipramine, and the supplement N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC). Dr. Grant also noted that previous drug trials involving patients with trichotillomania have been very short in duration.

Prior research has implicated the glutamate system in repetitive motor habits and the urges that drive them. Memantine, a glutamate receptor antagonist, targets excessive glutamatergic drive. To investigate whether this medication may be beneficial for patients with trichotillomania and skin-picking disorders, the investigators conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

The study included 100 adults (86 women; mean age, 31.4) with trichotillomania, skin-picking disorder, or both; participants received memantine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 45) for 8 weeks; they received memantine 10 mg or placebo for the first 2 weeks, then 20 mg for the next 6 weeks.

The researchers, who were blinded to assignment, assessed participants every 2 weeks using the National Institute of Mental Health Trichotillomania Symptom Severity Scale, which was modified to include questions for skin-picking disorder.

The team also tracked symptoms and behaviors using additional scales, including the Sheehan Disability Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale.

At the study’s conclusion, 79 patients remained. Of those, 26 of the 43 participants in the memantine group were “very much” or “much” improved (61%), versus 3 of 36 (8%) in the placebo group. (P < .0001)

Six participants in the memantine group experienced complete remission of symptoms, compared with one in the placebo group. There were no differences between the study groups in terms of adverse events.

Study limitations included the relatively short length of the trial for what should be considered a chronic disease, as well as the inclusion of only mildly to moderately symptomatic participants.

Dr. Grant said that he would like to study how memantine works in combination with behavioral therapy.
 

‘Two great options’

Katharine Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has been using memantine for “quite some time” to treat her patients with skin-picking disorder, adding that she uses higher doses of the drug than were tested in the study.

She noted that both NAC and memantine affect glutamate, an amino acid in the brain that is likely involved in repetitive physical or motor habits, such as hair pulling and skin picking.

“The good news is that we have two great options” for the treatment of trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, said Dr. Phillips, and that both are easy to tolerate.

Future research should focus on longer trials of memantine and at higher doses, as well as other glutamate modulators, she said.

The study was funded by departmental research funds at the University of Chicago. Dr. Grant reported receiving research funding from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and Janssen, as well as yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for his role as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies. He has also received royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, McGraw Hill, Oxford University Press, and WW Norton. Dr. Phillips reported receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing and an honorarium from the Merck Manual.

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

Memantine, a drug typically used to treat symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, is linked to a significant reduction in symptoms of trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, new research shows.

Results from the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed that 61% of participants who received memantine were “much or very much improved,” versus 8% in the placebo group.

“Memantine was far more effective than placebo,” lead investigator Jon Grant, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said in an interview. “However, while subjects responded favorably, that didn’t necessarily mean there were no symptoms.”

The study was published online  in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underrecognized, disabling

The investigators noted that trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder are underrecognized and are often disabling conditions. However, the researchers pointed out that with prevalence rates of 1.7% for trichotillomania and 2.1% for skin-picking disorder, they are not uncommon.

Behavioral therapy that attempts to reverse these habits is considered first-line treatment, but trained therapists are difficult to find. In addition, the investigators wrote that currently, there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for either disorder, and pharmacologic clinical trials are relatively uncommon.

The existing data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies support the use of the antipsychotic olanzapine, the tricyclic antidepressant clomipramine, and the supplement N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC). Dr. Grant also noted that previous drug trials involving patients with trichotillomania have been very short in duration.

Prior research has implicated the glutamate system in repetitive motor habits and the urges that drive them. Memantine, a glutamate receptor antagonist, targets excessive glutamatergic drive. To investigate whether this medication may be beneficial for patients with trichotillomania and skin-picking disorders, the investigators conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

The study included 100 adults (86 women; mean age, 31.4) with trichotillomania, skin-picking disorder, or both; participants received memantine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 45) for 8 weeks; they received memantine 10 mg or placebo for the first 2 weeks, then 20 mg for the next 6 weeks.

The researchers, who were blinded to assignment, assessed participants every 2 weeks using the National Institute of Mental Health Trichotillomania Symptom Severity Scale, which was modified to include questions for skin-picking disorder.

The team also tracked symptoms and behaviors using additional scales, including the Sheehan Disability Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale.

At the study’s conclusion, 79 patients remained. Of those, 26 of the 43 participants in the memantine group were “very much” or “much” improved (61%), versus 3 of 36 (8%) in the placebo group. (P < .0001)

Six participants in the memantine group experienced complete remission of symptoms, compared with one in the placebo group. There were no differences between the study groups in terms of adverse events.

Study limitations included the relatively short length of the trial for what should be considered a chronic disease, as well as the inclusion of only mildly to moderately symptomatic participants.

Dr. Grant said that he would like to study how memantine works in combination with behavioral therapy.
 

‘Two great options’

Katharine Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has been using memantine for “quite some time” to treat her patients with skin-picking disorder, adding that she uses higher doses of the drug than were tested in the study.

She noted that both NAC and memantine affect glutamate, an amino acid in the brain that is likely involved in repetitive physical or motor habits, such as hair pulling and skin picking.

“The good news is that we have two great options” for the treatment of trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, said Dr. Phillips, and that both are easy to tolerate.

Future research should focus on longer trials of memantine and at higher doses, as well as other glutamate modulators, she said.

The study was funded by departmental research funds at the University of Chicago. Dr. Grant reported receiving research funding from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and Janssen, as well as yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for his role as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies. He has also received royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, McGraw Hill, Oxford University Press, and WW Norton. Dr. Phillips reported receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing and an honorarium from the Merck Manual.

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

Electroconvulsive therapy appears to have a small advantage over ketamine for improving depressive symptoms in adults with a major depressive episode, results of a new review show.

“Although ECT is superior to ketamine for patients with a major depressive episode, our findings suggest that the therapeutic advantage may be smaller than what was demonstrated in prior analyses,” first author Vikas Menon, MD, department of psychiatry, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India, told this news organization.

“This supports a recommendation for a trial of ketamine before a trial of ECT for patients with MDE, though this recommendation is limited by the small size and number of existing trials,” Dr. Menon said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Questions remain

The meta-analysis included five trials of 278 adults with MDE (141 treated with ketamine and 137 with ECT).

In the main analysis, posttreatment depression ratings showed a trend for lower scores with ECT, compared with ketamine (standardized mean difference, −0.39; 95% confidence interval, −0.81 to 0.02). 

In a sensitivity analysis of the two methodologically stronger trials, ECT was superior to ketamine (pooled SMD, −0.45; 95% CI, −0.75 to −0.14).

ECT was also superior to ketamine in terms of response rates (risk ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and remission rates (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.82).

There were no significant between-group differences for number of sessions to response and remission and for cognitive outcomes.

Key limitations of the analysis were the small number of studies with limited sample sizes and a high risk of bias in all trials.

“There is a need for more comparative studies with adequate sample size in non-inferiority designs, examining a wider range of benefits and side effects and followed up for longer durations to answer clinically relevant questions about the nature and durability of observed benefits with ketamine,” said Dr. Menon.

“In patients with MDE for whom the administration of ECT is limited by restricted availability of the treatment, concerns about its cognitive adverse effects, negative patient attitudes, and other issues, clinicians may consider a trial of ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Important research’

Several experts offered perspective on the analysis in a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, which was not involved with the conduct of this study.

Rupert McShane, MD, psychiatrist at the University of Oxford (England), noted that ECT and ketamine are both “potent” treatments for depression, and this meta-analysis shows that they are, “broadly speaking, equally as good as each other with perhaps a slight advantage for ECT.”

“Whether or not there is a difference depends on exactly how you define it and how you cut the data. Despite the slight advantage for ECT in this analysis, the authors support using ketamine before ECT, especially in patients who are worried about the cognitive risks of ECT. This seems sensible,” Dr. McShane said.

Allan Young, MBChB, clinical psychiatrist at King’s College London, noted that both ketamine and ECT have been shown to help some patients with treatment-resistant depression.

“Clearly the relative benefits of these two treatments need to be understood better, but this review of the existing literature suggests that ECT may benefit some more than ketamine,” said Mr. Young.

“There is evidence that ketamine with ECT may add little extra benefit, but much more work needs to be done to fully understand how these treatments fit best into the treatment pathway for major depressive episodes. However, based on this evidence, ECT clearly still merits a place in the treatment pathway,” Mr. Young added.

George Kirov, PhD, clinical professor, division of psychological medicine and clinical neurosciences, Cardiff University (England), said while the study is conducted well, most of the evidence is coming from one large trial conducted in Sweden.

“The other studies add small numbers of patients and the authors even present a sensitivity analysis after removing studies of poor quality, thus leaving only two studies and exposing even further the dependence of the results on one single study,” Dr. Kirov noted. 

“The small studies should not be blamed for their size, as this is very difficult research to perform. On the other hand, the trends were in the same direction,” he added.

With those caveats in mind, Dr. Kirov said he still thinks this is “important research. It establishes the superiority of ECT against an active comparator (ketamine) which is very popular now and accepted to be quite effective.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Menon reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McShane is former chair of the ECT and Related Treatments Committee, Royal College of Psychiatrists and runs a ketamine clinic and an ECT service. Mr. Young has received compensation for lectures and advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Sunovion, Servier, Livanova, Janssen, Allergan, Bionomics, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, COMPASS, and Sage, and has served as principal investigator on a trial of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression. Dr. Kirov has no interest to declare other than running the ECT service in Cardiff.

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

Electroconvulsive therapy appears to have a small advantage over ketamine for improving depressive symptoms in adults with a major depressive episode, results of a new review show.

“Although ECT is superior to ketamine for patients with a major depressive episode, our findings suggest that the therapeutic advantage may be smaller than what was demonstrated in prior analyses,” first author Vikas Menon, MD, department of psychiatry, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India, told this news organization.

“This supports a recommendation for a trial of ketamine before a trial of ECT for patients with MDE, though this recommendation is limited by the small size and number of existing trials,” Dr. Menon said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Questions remain

The meta-analysis included five trials of 278 adults with MDE (141 treated with ketamine and 137 with ECT).

In the main analysis, posttreatment depression ratings showed a trend for lower scores with ECT, compared with ketamine (standardized mean difference, −0.39; 95% confidence interval, −0.81 to 0.02). 

In a sensitivity analysis of the two methodologically stronger trials, ECT was superior to ketamine (pooled SMD, −0.45; 95% CI, −0.75 to −0.14).

ECT was also superior to ketamine in terms of response rates (risk ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and remission rates (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.82).

There were no significant between-group differences for number of sessions to response and remission and for cognitive outcomes.

Key limitations of the analysis were the small number of studies with limited sample sizes and a high risk of bias in all trials.

“There is a need for more comparative studies with adequate sample size in non-inferiority designs, examining a wider range of benefits and side effects and followed up for longer durations to answer clinically relevant questions about the nature and durability of observed benefits with ketamine,” said Dr. Menon.

“In patients with MDE for whom the administration of ECT is limited by restricted availability of the treatment, concerns about its cognitive adverse effects, negative patient attitudes, and other issues, clinicians may consider a trial of ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Important research’

Several experts offered perspective on the analysis in a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, which was not involved with the conduct of this study.

Rupert McShane, MD, psychiatrist at the University of Oxford (England), noted that ECT and ketamine are both “potent” treatments for depression, and this meta-analysis shows that they are, “broadly speaking, equally as good as each other with perhaps a slight advantage for ECT.”

“Whether or not there is a difference depends on exactly how you define it and how you cut the data. Despite the slight advantage for ECT in this analysis, the authors support using ketamine before ECT, especially in patients who are worried about the cognitive risks of ECT. This seems sensible,” Dr. McShane said.

Allan Young, MBChB, clinical psychiatrist at King’s College London, noted that both ketamine and ECT have been shown to help some patients with treatment-resistant depression.

“Clearly the relative benefits of these two treatments need to be understood better, but this review of the existing literature suggests that ECT may benefit some more than ketamine,” said Mr. Young.

“There is evidence that ketamine with ECT may add little extra benefit, but much more work needs to be done to fully understand how these treatments fit best into the treatment pathway for major depressive episodes. However, based on this evidence, ECT clearly still merits a place in the treatment pathway,” Mr. Young added.

George Kirov, PhD, clinical professor, division of psychological medicine and clinical neurosciences, Cardiff University (England), said while the study is conducted well, most of the evidence is coming from one large trial conducted in Sweden.

“The other studies add small numbers of patients and the authors even present a sensitivity analysis after removing studies of poor quality, thus leaving only two studies and exposing even further the dependence of the results on one single study,” Dr. Kirov noted. 

“The small studies should not be blamed for their size, as this is very difficult research to perform. On the other hand, the trends were in the same direction,” he added.

With those caveats in mind, Dr. Kirov said he still thinks this is “important research. It establishes the superiority of ECT against an active comparator (ketamine) which is very popular now and accepted to be quite effective.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Menon reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McShane is former chair of the ECT and Related Treatments Committee, Royal College of Psychiatrists and runs a ketamine clinic and an ECT service. Mr. Young has received compensation for lectures and advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Sunovion, Servier, Livanova, Janssen, Allergan, Bionomics, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, COMPASS, and Sage, and has served as principal investigator on a trial of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression. Dr. Kirov has no interest to declare other than running the ECT service in Cardiff.

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

Electroconvulsive therapy appears to have a small advantage over ketamine for improving depressive symptoms in adults with a major depressive episode, results of a new review show.

“Although ECT is superior to ketamine for patients with a major depressive episode, our findings suggest that the therapeutic advantage may be smaller than what was demonstrated in prior analyses,” first author Vikas Menon, MD, department of psychiatry, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India, told this news organization.

“This supports a recommendation for a trial of ketamine before a trial of ECT for patients with MDE, though this recommendation is limited by the small size and number of existing trials,” Dr. Menon said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Questions remain

The meta-analysis included five trials of 278 adults with MDE (141 treated with ketamine and 137 with ECT).

In the main analysis, posttreatment depression ratings showed a trend for lower scores with ECT, compared with ketamine (standardized mean difference, −0.39; 95% confidence interval, −0.81 to 0.02). 

In a sensitivity analysis of the two methodologically stronger trials, ECT was superior to ketamine (pooled SMD, −0.45; 95% CI, −0.75 to −0.14).

ECT was also superior to ketamine in terms of response rates (risk ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and remission rates (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.82).

There were no significant between-group differences for number of sessions to response and remission and for cognitive outcomes.

Key limitations of the analysis were the small number of studies with limited sample sizes and a high risk of bias in all trials.

“There is a need for more comparative studies with adequate sample size in non-inferiority designs, examining a wider range of benefits and side effects and followed up for longer durations to answer clinically relevant questions about the nature and durability of observed benefits with ketamine,” said Dr. Menon.

“In patients with MDE for whom the administration of ECT is limited by restricted availability of the treatment, concerns about its cognitive adverse effects, negative patient attitudes, and other issues, clinicians may consider a trial of ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Important research’

Several experts offered perspective on the analysis in a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, which was not involved with the conduct of this study.

Rupert McShane, MD, psychiatrist at the University of Oxford (England), noted that ECT and ketamine are both “potent” treatments for depression, and this meta-analysis shows that they are, “broadly speaking, equally as good as each other with perhaps a slight advantage for ECT.”

“Whether or not there is a difference depends on exactly how you define it and how you cut the data. Despite the slight advantage for ECT in this analysis, the authors support using ketamine before ECT, especially in patients who are worried about the cognitive risks of ECT. This seems sensible,” Dr. McShane said.

Allan Young, MBChB, clinical psychiatrist at King’s College London, noted that both ketamine and ECT have been shown to help some patients with treatment-resistant depression.

“Clearly the relative benefits of these two treatments need to be understood better, but this review of the existing literature suggests that ECT may benefit some more than ketamine,” said Mr. Young.

“There is evidence that ketamine with ECT may add little extra benefit, but much more work needs to be done to fully understand how these treatments fit best into the treatment pathway for major depressive episodes. However, based on this evidence, ECT clearly still merits a place in the treatment pathway,” Mr. Young added.

George Kirov, PhD, clinical professor, division of psychological medicine and clinical neurosciences, Cardiff University (England), said while the study is conducted well, most of the evidence is coming from one large trial conducted in Sweden.

“The other studies add small numbers of patients and the authors even present a sensitivity analysis after removing studies of poor quality, thus leaving only two studies and exposing even further the dependence of the results on one single study,” Dr. Kirov noted. 

“The small studies should not be blamed for their size, as this is very difficult research to perform. On the other hand, the trends were in the same direction,” he added.

With those caveats in mind, Dr. Kirov said he still thinks this is “important research. It establishes the superiority of ECT against an active comparator (ketamine) which is very popular now and accepted to be quite effective.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Menon reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McShane is former chair of the ECT and Related Treatments Committee, Royal College of Psychiatrists and runs a ketamine clinic and an ECT service. Mr. Young has received compensation for lectures and advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Sunovion, Servier, Livanova, Janssen, Allergan, Bionomics, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, COMPASS, and Sage, and has served as principal investigator on a trial of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression. Dr. Kirov has no interest to declare other than running the ECT service in Cardiff.

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

PARIS – Adults who are easily angered may have experienced trauma during childhood, according to new findings that investigators believe warrant routine trauma screening for patents with depression and/or anxiety.

Investigators examined data on more than 2,250 individuals who were asked about trauma during childhood and a subsequent tendency toward anger or angry outbursts 4 years later.

Results showed that emotional neglect during childhood was associated with approximately a 40% increased likelihood of subsequent anger, while psychological abuse was linked to a 30% increased likelihood.

Childhood physical abuse was also significantly associated with anger in adults, with an increased risk of approximately 40%. The researchers found no link between childhood sexual abuse and adult anger.

“We can’t definitively say that the trauma causes the anger, but the link is clear,” study investigator Nienke De Bles, PhD student, department of psychiatry, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in a news release.

“Being easily angered can have several consequences,” she continued. “It can make personal interactions more difficult, and it can have consequences for your mental health and well-being, but people who get angry easily also have a greater tendency to discontinue psychiatric treatment, so this anger may mean that it reduces their chances of a better life,” she added.

Ms. De Bles believes that “it should be standard practice to ask depression and anxiety sufferers about anger and past trauma, even if the patient is not exhibiting current anger.”

The findings were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2023 Congress.
 

A ‘red flag’ for abuse

“Psychiatric treatments for past trauma may differ from treatments for depression, so psychiatrists need to try to understand the cause so that they can offer the correct treatment to each patient,” said Ms. De Bles.

Ms. De Bles noted that childhood trauma has many negative consequences later in life and that it is associated with a higher prevalence of adult depression and anxiety.

“There are several potential mechanisms for psychopathology in the context of childhood trauma, and emotion regulation seems to be one of the key mechanisms,” she said.

The researchers previously found that anger was highly prevalent among patients with affective disorders. It was present in 30% of those with current anxiety or depressive disorder and in 40% of those with comorbid depression and anxiety with a tendency toward anger versus 5% of healthy control persons.

Other studies have shown that anger is associated with poor treatment outcomes and dropping out of treatment.

To further investigate the link between childhood trauma and anger in adulthood, the researchers examined data on 2,271 participants in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).

Childhood trauma was assessed at baseline using the semistructured Childhood Trauma Interview. Anger was measured at a 4-year follow-up using the Spielberger Trait Anger Subscale, the Anger Attacks Questionnaire, and the borderline and antisocial subscales of the Personality Disorder Questionnaire 4 to identify cluster B personality traits.

Results showed that emotional neglect during childhood was significantly associated with trait anger in adulthood, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 (P < .001), anger attacks (OR, 1.35; P = .004), and borderline (OR, 1.76; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.88; P = .001) personality traits.

Childhood psychological abuse was also significantly associated with later trait anger (OR, 1.28; P = .002), anger attacks (OR, 1.31; P = .024), and borderline (OR, 1.77; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.69; P = .011) traits.

There was also a significant association between childhood psychical abuse and trait anger in adulthood (OR, 1.37; P < .001), anger attacks (OR, 1.48; P = .004), and borderline (OR, 1.71; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.98; P = .002) traits.

There was no significant association between sexual abuse experienced in childhood and later anger or personality traits.

Ms. De Bles said the findings suggest “there is indeed a relationship between childhood trauma and anger in adulthood, and this is something that might be interesting for clinicians, as anger could be a red flag for a history of childhood trauma.”

She said in an interview that anger is a “very normal human emotion” but that it has not been as widely studied as sadness and anxiety.

She suggested that future research could examine the use of trauma-based therapies for patients with a history of childhood trauma and anger.
 

Overlooked, neglected

Commenting on the findings, Nur Hani Zainal, PhD, department of healthcare policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings are “very consistent with the current biopsychosocial models in psychiatry and clinical psychology.”

Dr. Zainal, who was coauthor of a recent study that showed that anger appears to mediate the relationship between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology, said the current study offers a “good, incremental contribution” to the literature.

She noted there are “good uses” for the emotion of anger, as “sometimes we need anger to set healthy boundaries for ourselves.” However, she agreed that, as an aspect of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, it is often “overlooked.”

Dr. Zainal said that the findings reinforce the importance of thoroughly evaluating adult patients’ experiences during childhood.

Julian Beezhold, MD, secretary general of the EPA and a consultant psychiatrist with the Norwich (England) Medical School, University of East Anglia, commented in the release that anger is a “somewhat neglected symptom.

“The findings are in line with what we see in day-to-day clinical practice and will hopefully help increase the awareness of the importance of both anger and associated childhood trauma.”

The infrastructure for the NESDA study is funded through the Geestkracht program of the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and financial contributions by participating universities and mental health care organizations. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PARIS – Adults who are easily angered may have experienced trauma during childhood, according to new findings that investigators believe warrant routine trauma screening for patents with depression and/or anxiety.

Investigators examined data on more than 2,250 individuals who were asked about trauma during childhood and a subsequent tendency toward anger or angry outbursts 4 years later.

Results showed that emotional neglect during childhood was associated with approximately a 40% increased likelihood of subsequent anger, while psychological abuse was linked to a 30% increased likelihood.

Childhood physical abuse was also significantly associated with anger in adults, with an increased risk of approximately 40%. The researchers found no link between childhood sexual abuse and adult anger.

“We can’t definitively say that the trauma causes the anger, but the link is clear,” study investigator Nienke De Bles, PhD student, department of psychiatry, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in a news release.

“Being easily angered can have several consequences,” she continued. “It can make personal interactions more difficult, and it can have consequences for your mental health and well-being, but people who get angry easily also have a greater tendency to discontinue psychiatric treatment, so this anger may mean that it reduces their chances of a better life,” she added.

Ms. De Bles believes that “it should be standard practice to ask depression and anxiety sufferers about anger and past trauma, even if the patient is not exhibiting current anger.”

The findings were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2023 Congress.
 

A ‘red flag’ for abuse

“Psychiatric treatments for past trauma may differ from treatments for depression, so psychiatrists need to try to understand the cause so that they can offer the correct treatment to each patient,” said Ms. De Bles.

Ms. De Bles noted that childhood trauma has many negative consequences later in life and that it is associated with a higher prevalence of adult depression and anxiety.

“There are several potential mechanisms for psychopathology in the context of childhood trauma, and emotion regulation seems to be one of the key mechanisms,” she said.

The researchers previously found that anger was highly prevalent among patients with affective disorders. It was present in 30% of those with current anxiety or depressive disorder and in 40% of those with comorbid depression and anxiety with a tendency toward anger versus 5% of healthy control persons.

Other studies have shown that anger is associated with poor treatment outcomes and dropping out of treatment.

To further investigate the link between childhood trauma and anger in adulthood, the researchers examined data on 2,271 participants in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).

Childhood trauma was assessed at baseline using the semistructured Childhood Trauma Interview. Anger was measured at a 4-year follow-up using the Spielberger Trait Anger Subscale, the Anger Attacks Questionnaire, and the borderline and antisocial subscales of the Personality Disorder Questionnaire 4 to identify cluster B personality traits.

Results showed that emotional neglect during childhood was significantly associated with trait anger in adulthood, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 (P < .001), anger attacks (OR, 1.35; P = .004), and borderline (OR, 1.76; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.88; P = .001) personality traits.

Childhood psychological abuse was also significantly associated with later trait anger (OR, 1.28; P = .002), anger attacks (OR, 1.31; P = .024), and borderline (OR, 1.77; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.69; P = .011) traits.

There was also a significant association between childhood psychical abuse and trait anger in adulthood (OR, 1.37; P < .001), anger attacks (OR, 1.48; P = .004), and borderline (OR, 1.71; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.98; P = .002) traits.

There was no significant association between sexual abuse experienced in childhood and later anger or personality traits.

Ms. De Bles said the findings suggest “there is indeed a relationship between childhood trauma and anger in adulthood, and this is something that might be interesting for clinicians, as anger could be a red flag for a history of childhood trauma.”

She said in an interview that anger is a “very normal human emotion” but that it has not been as widely studied as sadness and anxiety.

She suggested that future research could examine the use of trauma-based therapies for patients with a history of childhood trauma and anger.
 

Overlooked, neglected

Commenting on the findings, Nur Hani Zainal, PhD, department of healthcare policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings are “very consistent with the current biopsychosocial models in psychiatry and clinical psychology.”

Dr. Zainal, who was coauthor of a recent study that showed that anger appears to mediate the relationship between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology, said the current study offers a “good, incremental contribution” to the literature.

She noted there are “good uses” for the emotion of anger, as “sometimes we need anger to set healthy boundaries for ourselves.” However, she agreed that, as an aspect of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, it is often “overlooked.”

Dr. Zainal said that the findings reinforce the importance of thoroughly evaluating adult patients’ experiences during childhood.

Julian Beezhold, MD, secretary general of the EPA and a consultant psychiatrist with the Norwich (England) Medical School, University of East Anglia, commented in the release that anger is a “somewhat neglected symptom.

“The findings are in line with what we see in day-to-day clinical practice and will hopefully help increase the awareness of the importance of both anger and associated childhood trauma.”

The infrastructure for the NESDA study is funded through the Geestkracht program of the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and financial contributions by participating universities and mental health care organizations. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PARIS – Adults who are easily angered may have experienced trauma during childhood, according to new findings that investigators believe warrant routine trauma screening for patents with depression and/or anxiety.

Investigators examined data on more than 2,250 individuals who were asked about trauma during childhood and a subsequent tendency toward anger or angry outbursts 4 years later.

Results showed that emotional neglect during childhood was associated with approximately a 40% increased likelihood of subsequent anger, while psychological abuse was linked to a 30% increased likelihood.

Childhood physical abuse was also significantly associated with anger in adults, with an increased risk of approximately 40%. The researchers found no link between childhood sexual abuse and adult anger.

“We can’t definitively say that the trauma causes the anger, but the link is clear,” study investigator Nienke De Bles, PhD student, department of psychiatry, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in a news release.

“Being easily angered can have several consequences,” she continued. “It can make personal interactions more difficult, and it can have consequences for your mental health and well-being, but people who get angry easily also have a greater tendency to discontinue psychiatric treatment, so this anger may mean that it reduces their chances of a better life,” she added.

Ms. De Bles believes that “it should be standard practice to ask depression and anxiety sufferers about anger and past trauma, even if the patient is not exhibiting current anger.”

The findings were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2023 Congress.
 

A ‘red flag’ for abuse

“Psychiatric treatments for past trauma may differ from treatments for depression, so psychiatrists need to try to understand the cause so that they can offer the correct treatment to each patient,” said Ms. De Bles.

Ms. De Bles noted that childhood trauma has many negative consequences later in life and that it is associated with a higher prevalence of adult depression and anxiety.

“There are several potential mechanisms for psychopathology in the context of childhood trauma, and emotion regulation seems to be one of the key mechanisms,” she said.

The researchers previously found that anger was highly prevalent among patients with affective disorders. It was present in 30% of those with current anxiety or depressive disorder and in 40% of those with comorbid depression and anxiety with a tendency toward anger versus 5% of healthy control persons.

Other studies have shown that anger is associated with poor treatment outcomes and dropping out of treatment.

To further investigate the link between childhood trauma and anger in adulthood, the researchers examined data on 2,271 participants in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).

Childhood trauma was assessed at baseline using the semistructured Childhood Trauma Interview. Anger was measured at a 4-year follow-up using the Spielberger Trait Anger Subscale, the Anger Attacks Questionnaire, and the borderline and antisocial subscales of the Personality Disorder Questionnaire 4 to identify cluster B personality traits.

Results showed that emotional neglect during childhood was significantly associated with trait anger in adulthood, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 (P < .001), anger attacks (OR, 1.35; P = .004), and borderline (OR, 1.76; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.88; P = .001) personality traits.

Childhood psychological abuse was also significantly associated with later trait anger (OR, 1.28; P = .002), anger attacks (OR, 1.31; P = .024), and borderline (OR, 1.77; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.69; P = .011) traits.

There was also a significant association between childhood psychical abuse and trait anger in adulthood (OR, 1.37; P < .001), anger attacks (OR, 1.48; P = .004), and borderline (OR, 1.71; P < .001) and antisocial (OR, 1.98; P = .002) traits.

There was no significant association between sexual abuse experienced in childhood and later anger or personality traits.

Ms. De Bles said the findings suggest “there is indeed a relationship between childhood trauma and anger in adulthood, and this is something that might be interesting for clinicians, as anger could be a red flag for a history of childhood trauma.”

She said in an interview that anger is a “very normal human emotion” but that it has not been as widely studied as sadness and anxiety.

She suggested that future research could examine the use of trauma-based therapies for patients with a history of childhood trauma and anger.
 

Overlooked, neglected

Commenting on the findings, Nur Hani Zainal, PhD, department of healthcare policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings are “very consistent with the current biopsychosocial models in psychiatry and clinical psychology.”

Dr. Zainal, who was coauthor of a recent study that showed that anger appears to mediate the relationship between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology, said the current study offers a “good, incremental contribution” to the literature.

She noted there are “good uses” for the emotion of anger, as “sometimes we need anger to set healthy boundaries for ourselves.” However, she agreed that, as an aspect of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, it is often “overlooked.”

Dr. Zainal said that the findings reinforce the importance of thoroughly evaluating adult patients’ experiences during childhood.

Julian Beezhold, MD, secretary general of the EPA and a consultant psychiatrist with the Norwich (England) Medical School, University of East Anglia, commented in the release that anger is a “somewhat neglected symptom.

“The findings are in line with what we see in day-to-day clinical practice and will hopefully help increase the awareness of the importance of both anger and associated childhood trauma.”

The infrastructure for the NESDA study is funded through the Geestkracht program of the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and financial contributions by participating universities and mental health care organizations. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults in cities are at lower risk of serious psychological distress – and potentially of later cognitive impairment and dementia – when they live close to so-called green and blue spaces, which can include public parks, community gardens, cemeteries, and bodies of water.

The findings of the study, which was released ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, build on a growing understanding of the relationship between types and qualities of urban environments and dementia risk.

Adithya Vegaraju, a student at Washington State University, Spokane, led the study, which looked at data from the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess prevalence of serious psychological distress among 42,980 Washington state residents aged 65 and over.

The data, collected between 2011 and 2019, used a self-reported questionnaire to determine serious psychological distress, which is defined as a level of mental distress considered debilitating enough to warrant treatment.

Mr. Vegaraju and his coauthor Solmaz Amiri, DDes, also of Washington State University, used ZIP codes, along with U.S. census data, to approximate the urban adults’ proximity to green and blue spaces.

After controlling for potential confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, education, and marital status, the investigators found that people living within half a mile of green or blue spaces had a 17% lower risk of experiencing serious psychological distress, compared with people living farther from these spaces, the investigators said in a news release.
 

Implications for cognitive decline and dementia?

Psychological distress in adults has been linked in population-based longitudinal studies to later cognitive decline and dementia. One study in older adults found the risk of dementia to be more than 50% higher among adults aged 50-70 with persistent depression. Blue and green spaces have also been investigated in relation to neurodegenerative disease among older adults; a 2022 study looking at data from some 62 million Medicare beneficiaries found those living in areas with more vegetation saw lower risk of hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.

“Since we lack effective prevention methods or treatments for mild cognitive impairment and dementia, we need to get creative in how we look at these issues,” Dr. Amiri commented in a press statement about her and Mr. Vegaraju’s findings. “Our hope is that this study showing better mental health among people living close to parks and water will trigger other studies about how these benefits work and whether this proximity can help prevent or delay mild cognitive impairment and dementia.”

The investigators acknowledged that their findings were limited by reliance on a self-reported measure of psychological distress.
 

A bidirectional connection with depression and dementia

In a comment, Anjum Hajat, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle who has also studied the relationship between green space and dementia risk in older adults, noted some further apparent limitations of the new study, for which only an abstract was available at publication.

“It has been shown that people with depression are at higher risk for dementia, but the opposite is also true,” Dr. Hajat commented. “Those with dementia are more likely to develop depression. This bidirectionality makes this study abstract difficult to interpret since the study is based on cross-sectional data: Individuals are not followed over time to see which develops first, dementia or depression.”

Additionally, Dr. Hajat noted, the data used to determine proximity to green and blue spaces did not allow for the calculation of precise distances between subjects’ homes and these spaces.

Mr. Vegaraju and Dr. Amiri’s study had no outside support, and the investigators declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hajat declared no conflicts of interest.

Older adults in cities are at lower risk of serious psychological distress – and potentially of later cognitive impairment and dementia – when they live close to so-called green and blue spaces, which can include public parks, community gardens, cemeteries, and bodies of water.

The findings of the study, which was released ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, build on a growing understanding of the relationship between types and qualities of urban environments and dementia risk.

Adithya Vegaraju, a student at Washington State University, Spokane, led the study, which looked at data from the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess prevalence of serious psychological distress among 42,980 Washington state residents aged 65 and over.

The data, collected between 2011 and 2019, used a self-reported questionnaire to determine serious psychological distress, which is defined as a level of mental distress considered debilitating enough to warrant treatment.

Mr. Vegaraju and his coauthor Solmaz Amiri, DDes, also of Washington State University, used ZIP codes, along with U.S. census data, to approximate the urban adults’ proximity to green and blue spaces.

After controlling for potential confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, education, and marital status, the investigators found that people living within half a mile of green or blue spaces had a 17% lower risk of experiencing serious psychological distress, compared with people living farther from these spaces, the investigators said in a news release.
 

Implications for cognitive decline and dementia?

Psychological distress in adults has been linked in population-based longitudinal studies to later cognitive decline and dementia. One study in older adults found the risk of dementia to be more than 50% higher among adults aged 50-70 with persistent depression. Blue and green spaces have also been investigated in relation to neurodegenerative disease among older adults; a 2022 study looking at data from some 62 million Medicare beneficiaries found those living in areas with more vegetation saw lower risk of hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.

“Since we lack effective prevention methods or treatments for mild cognitive impairment and dementia, we need to get creative in how we look at these issues,” Dr. Amiri commented in a press statement about her and Mr. Vegaraju’s findings. “Our hope is that this study showing better mental health among people living close to parks and water will trigger other studies about how these benefits work and whether this proximity can help prevent or delay mild cognitive impairment and dementia.”

The investigators acknowledged that their findings were limited by reliance on a self-reported measure of psychological distress.
 

A bidirectional connection with depression and dementia

In a comment, Anjum Hajat, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle who has also studied the relationship between green space and dementia risk in older adults, noted some further apparent limitations of the new study, for which only an abstract was available at publication.

“It has been shown that people with depression are at higher risk for dementia, but the opposite is also true,” Dr. Hajat commented. “Those with dementia are more likely to develop depression. This bidirectionality makes this study abstract difficult to interpret since the study is based on cross-sectional data: Individuals are not followed over time to see which develops first, dementia or depression.”

Additionally, Dr. Hajat noted, the data used to determine proximity to green and blue spaces did not allow for the calculation of precise distances between subjects’ homes and these spaces.

Mr. Vegaraju and Dr. Amiri’s study had no outside support, and the investigators declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hajat declared no conflicts of interest.

Older adults in cities are at lower risk of serious psychological distress – and potentially of later cognitive impairment and dementia – when they live close to so-called green and blue spaces, which can include public parks, community gardens, cemeteries, and bodies of water.

The findings of the study, which was released ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, build on a growing understanding of the relationship between types and qualities of urban environments and dementia risk.

Adithya Vegaraju, a student at Washington State University, Spokane, led the study, which looked at data from the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess prevalence of serious psychological distress among 42,980 Washington state residents aged 65 and over.

The data, collected between 2011 and 2019, used a self-reported questionnaire to determine serious psychological distress, which is defined as a level of mental distress considered debilitating enough to warrant treatment.

Mr. Vegaraju and his coauthor Solmaz Amiri, DDes, also of Washington State University, used ZIP codes, along with U.S. census data, to approximate the urban adults’ proximity to green and blue spaces.

After controlling for potential confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, education, and marital status, the investigators found that people living within half a mile of green or blue spaces had a 17% lower risk of experiencing serious psychological distress, compared with people living farther from these spaces, the investigators said in a news release.
 

Implications for cognitive decline and dementia?

Psychological distress in adults has been linked in population-based longitudinal studies to later cognitive decline and dementia. One study in older adults found the risk of dementia to be more than 50% higher among adults aged 50-70 with persistent depression. Blue and green spaces have also been investigated in relation to neurodegenerative disease among older adults; a 2022 study looking at data from some 62 million Medicare beneficiaries found those living in areas with more vegetation saw lower risk of hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.

“Since we lack effective prevention methods or treatments for mild cognitive impairment and dementia, we need to get creative in how we look at these issues,” Dr. Amiri commented in a press statement about her and Mr. Vegaraju’s findings. “Our hope is that this study showing better mental health among people living close to parks and water will trigger other studies about how these benefits work and whether this proximity can help prevent or delay mild cognitive impairment and dementia.”

The investigators acknowledged that their findings were limited by reliance on a self-reported measure of psychological distress.
 

A bidirectional connection with depression and dementia

In a comment, Anjum Hajat, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle who has also studied the relationship between green space and dementia risk in older adults, noted some further apparent limitations of the new study, for which only an abstract was available at publication.

“It has been shown that people with depression are at higher risk for dementia, but the opposite is also true,” Dr. Hajat commented. “Those with dementia are more likely to develop depression. This bidirectionality makes this study abstract difficult to interpret since the study is based on cross-sectional data: Individuals are not followed over time to see which develops first, dementia or depression.”

Additionally, Dr. Hajat noted, the data used to determine proximity to green and blue spaces did not allow for the calculation of precise distances between subjects’ homes and these spaces.

Mr. Vegaraju and Dr. Amiri’s study had no outside support, and the investigators declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hajat declared no conflicts of interest.