Clinical Psychiatry News

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to take further action against a group of investigators at Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare (HCMC) who conducted controversial studies involving ketamine and other sedatives on agitated persons without their consent.

A citizen petition filed by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, had asked the FDA to initiate clinical-investigator disqualification proceedings against Jon Cole, MD, and Lauren Klein, MD, along with other researchers who participated in the studies, for “repeatedly and deliberately initiating and conducting clinical investigations of investigational drug products” without having submitted or having in effect the investigational new drug applications (INDs) required by the FDA.

In certain situations, wherein the FDA alleges that a clinical investigator has violated applicable regulations, the agency may initiate clinical investigator disqualification proceedings. The names of the disqualified researchers are then added to a federal database.

The petition, which was filed in November 2021, also requested that the FDA initiate disqualification proceedings against the institutional review board (IRB) at HCMC for repeatedly failing to comply with federal regulations that adversely affected the rights and welfare of the individuals who were enrolled in the study without their consent.

Of note, Public Citizen stated that the FDA should have required the hospital to contact the more than 1,700 patients who “were unwittingly enrolled in unethical experiments” and inform them that their rights had been violated and their health potentially endangered by the research team.

Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told this news organization that it is uncommon for the FDA to disqualify researchers. “It should be more common than it is,” he said. “I think that FDA is just reluctant to take more action.”

The actions of the Hennepin investigators were “repetitive and appeared to be in deliberate violation of regulations,” he added. “The case for the FDA disqualifying the HCMC researchers is overwhelming. The FDA’s slap-on-the-wrist approach to such appalling regulatory and ethical violations risks emboldening other researchers to disregard the rights and welfare of human subjects.”

Carl Elliott, MD, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, agrees that the researcher from HCMC should be disqualified. “They didn’t just conduct risky, exploitative studies – they conducted them after the FDA had warned them not to proceed,” he said. “The message sent by this slap on the wrist is that investigators can do whatever they want to nonconsenting subjects, and the FDA will look the other way.”
 

Initial complaint

Public Citizen initially filed a complaint with the FDA in 2018, after learning that researchers affiliated with HCMC were conducting high-risk clinical trials involving ketamine to control agitation outside of the hospital setting. The complaint was cosigned by 64 doctors, bioethicists, and academic researchers and was also submitted to the Office for Human Research Protections.

The FDA typically allows investigational drugs to be used in emergency situation without obtaining informed consent if the therapies are known to carry a minimal risk. The IRB at HCMC had determined that this was the case with ketamine and approved the trials.

But according to Public Citizen’s complaint, prior research had suggested that ketamine could cause more complications and severe adverse events, compared with other sedatives.

The trials were conducted between 2014 and 2018, and in its letter, Public Citizen alleged that the investigators and the IRB had allowed these trials to proceed without obtaining informed consent from patients. The goal was to evaluate how well ketamine worked, compared with other drugs in calming agitated individuals: “The patients were given either ketamine or haloperidol for agitation by paramedics who responded to medical emergencies, and the goal was to see which drug worked faster,” said Dr. Carome. “Patients were only notified afterwards that they had received a sedative. Informed consent had been waived by IRB.”

In the first clinical trial conducted by HCMC, published in 2016, the researchers had hypothesized that 5 mg/kg of intramuscular ketamine would be superior to 10 mg of intramuscular haloperidol for severe prehospital agitation. Time to adequate sedation was the primary outcome measure. The study included 146 people; 64 received ketamine and 82 received haloperidol. They found that ketamine worked far more quickly than haloperidol (5 minutes vs. 17 minutes) but that the risk for complications was much higher. Complications occurred in 49% of patients receiving ketamine, compared with 5%.

“There was a 10-fold risk of adverse events,” said Dr. Carome. “And 39% of patients given ketamine had respiratory problems requiring intubation, compared to 4% who received haloperidol.”

A second study was launched in 2017, wherein ketamine was compared with midazolam in agitated patients. During the first 6-month period of the study, individuals would receive a ketamine-based protocol for prehospital agitation, and during the second 6 months, that would switch to midazolam. However, the study was halted in June 2018 after the local newspaper, the Star Tribune, reported that the city police had encouraged medical personnel to sedate agitated patients. This included individuals who had already been physically restrained.

The report stated that “in many cases, the individual being detained or arrested was not only handcuffed but strapped down on a stretcher in an ambulance before receiving ketamine,” and that it raised a “concerning question” over why these people were given the drug before they were transported to the hospital, “given the immediate effects on breathing and heart function that the drug induces.”

Along with halting the trial, HCMC asked for a review of cases involving its paramedics; an independent investigation led by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates was initiated to assess whether the Minneapolis police had crossed a line and urged paramedics to use ketamine.

“The decision to use ketamine was based on the study’s timeline and not on clinical judgment,” said Dr. Carome.

The FDA acknowledged receipt of the complaint and inspected the IRB records and the clinical trial data. Preliminary reports received by Public Citizen confirmed their allegations. “There were not appropriate protections for vulnerable subjects,” he said. “In 2019, the FDA did further investigations, and those reports had similar findings.”
 

FDA letters

The FDA had sent warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, citing them for ignoring federal safety laws in experimental research on the public. In their investigations, the FDA cited “objectionable conditions” for the studies led by Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, according to the letters. Both researchers seemingly ignored FDA regulations and used practices that subjected patients to “significantly increased risk,” and the hospital defended its research with “factually incorrect” statements.

In a letter to Dr. Cole, the FDA noted that he never filed INDs for the trials with the FDA, as required by law, and that he also failed to write appropriate protocols to ensure that children and pregnant women were not enrolled in the research. Individuals under the influence of intoxicants also were not excluded, though the use of ketamine is cautioned in this population.

“Administration of the investigational drugs to these subjects placed them at significantly increased risk of the adverse events associated with the investigational products and decreased the acceptability of those risks,” the FDA said in its letter. “Your failure to exclude, and the lack of any precautions for, subjects under the influence of various intoxicants significantly increased the risks and/or decreased the acceptability of the risks associated with the investigational drugs.”

However, Dr. Cole conducted both studies in the prehospital setting and failed to initiate any specific measures to protect study participants, according to the FDA.
 

Petition denied

Dr. Carome noted that the researchers had committed repetitive egregious regulatory violations over a 4-year period, which were documented by the FDA in their warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein. “We felt that they were so egregious that we need to send a signal to the community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated,” he said. “The FDA denied our petition, and we think that sends the wrong signal to the research community.”

In their response, the FDA noted that as with judicial enforcement, “the Agency makes decisions regarding whether to pursue administrative enforcement action, including disqualification proceedings, on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant facts and circumstances.” They added that at this time, they would not be taking further action against Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein.

“However, we intend to continue to consider all the options available to the Agency as we determine whether to pursue additional compliance actions related to this matter,” the FDA concluded.

The FDA declined to comment further on their decision.

Dr. Cole also declined to comment, but Hennepin Healthcare told this news organization that the “decision by the FDA to deny the petition validates the changes we made to strengthen and improve the clinical research program across the institution since the closing of the studies in 2018. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA to ensure full compliance with the standards in place to protect research subjects.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to take further action against a group of investigators at Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare (HCMC) who conducted controversial studies involving ketamine and other sedatives on agitated persons without their consent.

A citizen petition filed by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, had asked the FDA to initiate clinical-investigator disqualification proceedings against Jon Cole, MD, and Lauren Klein, MD, along with other researchers who participated in the studies, for “repeatedly and deliberately initiating and conducting clinical investigations of investigational drug products” without having submitted or having in effect the investigational new drug applications (INDs) required by the FDA.

In certain situations, wherein the FDA alleges that a clinical investigator has violated applicable regulations, the agency may initiate clinical investigator disqualification proceedings. The names of the disqualified researchers are then added to a federal database.

The petition, which was filed in November 2021, also requested that the FDA initiate disqualification proceedings against the institutional review board (IRB) at HCMC for repeatedly failing to comply with federal regulations that adversely affected the rights and welfare of the individuals who were enrolled in the study without their consent.

Of note, Public Citizen stated that the FDA should have required the hospital to contact the more than 1,700 patients who “were unwittingly enrolled in unethical experiments” and inform them that their rights had been violated and their health potentially endangered by the research team.

Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told this news organization that it is uncommon for the FDA to disqualify researchers. “It should be more common than it is,” he said. “I think that FDA is just reluctant to take more action.”

The actions of the Hennepin investigators were “repetitive and appeared to be in deliberate violation of regulations,” he added. “The case for the FDA disqualifying the HCMC researchers is overwhelming. The FDA’s slap-on-the-wrist approach to such appalling regulatory and ethical violations risks emboldening other researchers to disregard the rights and welfare of human subjects.”

Carl Elliott, MD, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, agrees that the researcher from HCMC should be disqualified. “They didn’t just conduct risky, exploitative studies – they conducted them after the FDA had warned them not to proceed,” he said. “The message sent by this slap on the wrist is that investigators can do whatever they want to nonconsenting subjects, and the FDA will look the other way.”
 

Initial complaint

Public Citizen initially filed a complaint with the FDA in 2018, after learning that researchers affiliated with HCMC were conducting high-risk clinical trials involving ketamine to control agitation outside of the hospital setting. The complaint was cosigned by 64 doctors, bioethicists, and academic researchers and was also submitted to the Office for Human Research Protections.

The FDA typically allows investigational drugs to be used in emergency situation without obtaining informed consent if the therapies are known to carry a minimal risk. The IRB at HCMC had determined that this was the case with ketamine and approved the trials.

But according to Public Citizen’s complaint, prior research had suggested that ketamine could cause more complications and severe adverse events, compared with other sedatives.

The trials were conducted between 2014 and 2018, and in its letter, Public Citizen alleged that the investigators and the IRB had allowed these trials to proceed without obtaining informed consent from patients. The goal was to evaluate how well ketamine worked, compared with other drugs in calming agitated individuals: “The patients were given either ketamine or haloperidol for agitation by paramedics who responded to medical emergencies, and the goal was to see which drug worked faster,” said Dr. Carome. “Patients were only notified afterwards that they had received a sedative. Informed consent had been waived by IRB.”

In the first clinical trial conducted by HCMC, published in 2016, the researchers had hypothesized that 5 mg/kg of intramuscular ketamine would be superior to 10 mg of intramuscular haloperidol for severe prehospital agitation. Time to adequate sedation was the primary outcome measure. The study included 146 people; 64 received ketamine and 82 received haloperidol. They found that ketamine worked far more quickly than haloperidol (5 minutes vs. 17 minutes) but that the risk for complications was much higher. Complications occurred in 49% of patients receiving ketamine, compared with 5%.

“There was a 10-fold risk of adverse events,” said Dr. Carome. “And 39% of patients given ketamine had respiratory problems requiring intubation, compared to 4% who received haloperidol.”

A second study was launched in 2017, wherein ketamine was compared with midazolam in agitated patients. During the first 6-month period of the study, individuals would receive a ketamine-based protocol for prehospital agitation, and during the second 6 months, that would switch to midazolam. However, the study was halted in June 2018 after the local newspaper, the Star Tribune, reported that the city police had encouraged medical personnel to sedate agitated patients. This included individuals who had already been physically restrained.

The report stated that “in many cases, the individual being detained or arrested was not only handcuffed but strapped down on a stretcher in an ambulance before receiving ketamine,” and that it raised a “concerning question” over why these people were given the drug before they were transported to the hospital, “given the immediate effects on breathing and heart function that the drug induces.”

Along with halting the trial, HCMC asked for a review of cases involving its paramedics; an independent investigation led by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates was initiated to assess whether the Minneapolis police had crossed a line and urged paramedics to use ketamine.

“The decision to use ketamine was based on the study’s timeline and not on clinical judgment,” said Dr. Carome.

The FDA acknowledged receipt of the complaint and inspected the IRB records and the clinical trial data. Preliminary reports received by Public Citizen confirmed their allegations. “There were not appropriate protections for vulnerable subjects,” he said. “In 2019, the FDA did further investigations, and those reports had similar findings.”
 

FDA letters

The FDA had sent warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, citing them for ignoring federal safety laws in experimental research on the public. In their investigations, the FDA cited “objectionable conditions” for the studies led by Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, according to the letters. Both researchers seemingly ignored FDA regulations and used practices that subjected patients to “significantly increased risk,” and the hospital defended its research with “factually incorrect” statements.

In a letter to Dr. Cole, the FDA noted that he never filed INDs for the trials with the FDA, as required by law, and that he also failed to write appropriate protocols to ensure that children and pregnant women were not enrolled in the research. Individuals under the influence of intoxicants also were not excluded, though the use of ketamine is cautioned in this population.

“Administration of the investigational drugs to these subjects placed them at significantly increased risk of the adverse events associated with the investigational products and decreased the acceptability of those risks,” the FDA said in its letter. “Your failure to exclude, and the lack of any precautions for, subjects under the influence of various intoxicants significantly increased the risks and/or decreased the acceptability of the risks associated with the investigational drugs.”

However, Dr. Cole conducted both studies in the prehospital setting and failed to initiate any specific measures to protect study participants, according to the FDA.
 

Petition denied

Dr. Carome noted that the researchers had committed repetitive egregious regulatory violations over a 4-year period, which were documented by the FDA in their warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein. “We felt that they were so egregious that we need to send a signal to the community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated,” he said. “The FDA denied our petition, and we think that sends the wrong signal to the research community.”

In their response, the FDA noted that as with judicial enforcement, “the Agency makes decisions regarding whether to pursue administrative enforcement action, including disqualification proceedings, on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant facts and circumstances.” They added that at this time, they would not be taking further action against Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein.

“However, we intend to continue to consider all the options available to the Agency as we determine whether to pursue additional compliance actions related to this matter,” the FDA concluded.

The FDA declined to comment further on their decision.

Dr. Cole also declined to comment, but Hennepin Healthcare told this news organization that the “decision by the FDA to deny the petition validates the changes we made to strengthen and improve the clinical research program across the institution since the closing of the studies in 2018. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA to ensure full compliance with the standards in place to protect research subjects.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to take further action against a group of investigators at Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare (HCMC) who conducted controversial studies involving ketamine and other sedatives on agitated persons without their consent.

A citizen petition filed by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, had asked the FDA to initiate clinical-investigator disqualification proceedings against Jon Cole, MD, and Lauren Klein, MD, along with other researchers who participated in the studies, for “repeatedly and deliberately initiating and conducting clinical investigations of investigational drug products” without having submitted or having in effect the investigational new drug applications (INDs) required by the FDA.

In certain situations, wherein the FDA alleges that a clinical investigator has violated applicable regulations, the agency may initiate clinical investigator disqualification proceedings. The names of the disqualified researchers are then added to a federal database.

The petition, which was filed in November 2021, also requested that the FDA initiate disqualification proceedings against the institutional review board (IRB) at HCMC for repeatedly failing to comply with federal regulations that adversely affected the rights and welfare of the individuals who were enrolled in the study without their consent.

Of note, Public Citizen stated that the FDA should have required the hospital to contact the more than 1,700 patients who “were unwittingly enrolled in unethical experiments” and inform them that their rights had been violated and their health potentially endangered by the research team.

Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told this news organization that it is uncommon for the FDA to disqualify researchers. “It should be more common than it is,” he said. “I think that FDA is just reluctant to take more action.”

The actions of the Hennepin investigators were “repetitive and appeared to be in deliberate violation of regulations,” he added. “The case for the FDA disqualifying the HCMC researchers is overwhelming. The FDA’s slap-on-the-wrist approach to such appalling regulatory and ethical violations risks emboldening other researchers to disregard the rights and welfare of human subjects.”

Carl Elliott, MD, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, agrees that the researcher from HCMC should be disqualified. “They didn’t just conduct risky, exploitative studies – they conducted them after the FDA had warned them not to proceed,” he said. “The message sent by this slap on the wrist is that investigators can do whatever they want to nonconsenting subjects, and the FDA will look the other way.”
 

Initial complaint

Public Citizen initially filed a complaint with the FDA in 2018, after learning that researchers affiliated with HCMC were conducting high-risk clinical trials involving ketamine to control agitation outside of the hospital setting. The complaint was cosigned by 64 doctors, bioethicists, and academic researchers and was also submitted to the Office for Human Research Protections.

The FDA typically allows investigational drugs to be used in emergency situation without obtaining informed consent if the therapies are known to carry a minimal risk. The IRB at HCMC had determined that this was the case with ketamine and approved the trials.

But according to Public Citizen’s complaint, prior research had suggested that ketamine could cause more complications and severe adverse events, compared with other sedatives.

The trials were conducted between 2014 and 2018, and in its letter, Public Citizen alleged that the investigators and the IRB had allowed these trials to proceed without obtaining informed consent from patients. The goal was to evaluate how well ketamine worked, compared with other drugs in calming agitated individuals: “The patients were given either ketamine or haloperidol for agitation by paramedics who responded to medical emergencies, and the goal was to see which drug worked faster,” said Dr. Carome. “Patients were only notified afterwards that they had received a sedative. Informed consent had been waived by IRB.”

In the first clinical trial conducted by HCMC, published in 2016, the researchers had hypothesized that 5 mg/kg of intramuscular ketamine would be superior to 10 mg of intramuscular haloperidol for severe prehospital agitation. Time to adequate sedation was the primary outcome measure. The study included 146 people; 64 received ketamine and 82 received haloperidol. They found that ketamine worked far more quickly than haloperidol (5 minutes vs. 17 minutes) but that the risk for complications was much higher. Complications occurred in 49% of patients receiving ketamine, compared with 5%.

“There was a 10-fold risk of adverse events,” said Dr. Carome. “And 39% of patients given ketamine had respiratory problems requiring intubation, compared to 4% who received haloperidol.”

A second study was launched in 2017, wherein ketamine was compared with midazolam in agitated patients. During the first 6-month period of the study, individuals would receive a ketamine-based protocol for prehospital agitation, and during the second 6 months, that would switch to midazolam. However, the study was halted in June 2018 after the local newspaper, the Star Tribune, reported that the city police had encouraged medical personnel to sedate agitated patients. This included individuals who had already been physically restrained.

The report stated that “in many cases, the individual being detained or arrested was not only handcuffed but strapped down on a stretcher in an ambulance before receiving ketamine,” and that it raised a “concerning question” over why these people were given the drug before they were transported to the hospital, “given the immediate effects on breathing and heart function that the drug induces.”

Along with halting the trial, HCMC asked for a review of cases involving its paramedics; an independent investigation led by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates was initiated to assess whether the Minneapolis police had crossed a line and urged paramedics to use ketamine.

“The decision to use ketamine was based on the study’s timeline and not on clinical judgment,” said Dr. Carome.

The FDA acknowledged receipt of the complaint and inspected the IRB records and the clinical trial data. Preliminary reports received by Public Citizen confirmed their allegations. “There were not appropriate protections for vulnerable subjects,” he said. “In 2019, the FDA did further investigations, and those reports had similar findings.”
 

FDA letters

The FDA had sent warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, citing them for ignoring federal safety laws in experimental research on the public. In their investigations, the FDA cited “objectionable conditions” for the studies led by Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, according to the letters. Both researchers seemingly ignored FDA regulations and used practices that subjected patients to “significantly increased risk,” and the hospital defended its research with “factually incorrect” statements.

In a letter to Dr. Cole, the FDA noted that he never filed INDs for the trials with the FDA, as required by law, and that he also failed to write appropriate protocols to ensure that children and pregnant women were not enrolled in the research. Individuals under the influence of intoxicants also were not excluded, though the use of ketamine is cautioned in this population.

“Administration of the investigational drugs to these subjects placed them at significantly increased risk of the adverse events associated with the investigational products and decreased the acceptability of those risks,” the FDA said in its letter. “Your failure to exclude, and the lack of any precautions for, subjects under the influence of various intoxicants significantly increased the risks and/or decreased the acceptability of the risks associated with the investigational drugs.”

However, Dr. Cole conducted both studies in the prehospital setting and failed to initiate any specific measures to protect study participants, according to the FDA.
 

Petition denied

Dr. Carome noted that the researchers had committed repetitive egregious regulatory violations over a 4-year period, which were documented by the FDA in their warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein. “We felt that they were so egregious that we need to send a signal to the community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated,” he said. “The FDA denied our petition, and we think that sends the wrong signal to the research community.”

In their response, the FDA noted that as with judicial enforcement, “the Agency makes decisions regarding whether to pursue administrative enforcement action, including disqualification proceedings, on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant facts and circumstances.” They added that at this time, they would not be taking further action against Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein.

“However, we intend to continue to consider all the options available to the Agency as we determine whether to pursue additional compliance actions related to this matter,” the FDA concluded.

The FDA declined to comment further on their decision.

Dr. Cole also declined to comment, but Hennepin Healthcare told this news organization that the “decision by the FDA to deny the petition validates the changes we made to strengthen and improve the clinical research program across the institution since the closing of the studies in 2018. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA to ensure full compliance with the standards in place to protect research subjects.”

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

Transgender and nonbinary adolescents are twice as likely to experience sexual violence as their cisgendered peers but are less likely to attempt rape or commit sexual assault, researchers have found.

The study, which was published online  in JAMA Network Open, is among the first on the sexual violence that trans, nonbinary, and other gender nonconforming adolescents experience. Previous studies have focused on adults.

“In the busy world of clinical care, it is essential that clinicians be aware of potential disparities their patients are navigating,” said Michele Ybarra, PhD, MPH, president and research director of the Center for Innovative Public Health Research, San Clemente, California, who led the study. “This includes sexual violence victimization for gender minority youth and the need to talk about consent and boundaries for youth of all genders.”

Dr. Ybarra said that while clinicians may be aware that transgender young people face stigma, discrimination, and bullying, they may not be aware that trans youth are also the targets of sexual violence.

Studies indicate that health care providers and communities have significant misconceptions about sexually explicit behavior among trans and nonbinary teens. Misconceptions can lead to discrimination, resulting in higher rates of drug abuse, dropping out of school, suicide, and homelessness.

Dr. Ybarra and her colleagues surveyed 911 trans, nonbinary, or questioning youth on Instagram and Facebook through a collaboration with Growing Up With Media, a national longitudinal survey designed to investigate sexual violence during adolescence.

They also surveyed 3,282 cisgender persons aged 14-16 years who were recruited to the study between June 2018 and March 2020. The term “cisgender” refers to youth who identify with their gender at birth.

The questionnaires asked teens about gender identity, race, economic status, and support systems at home. Factors associated with not experiencing sexual violence included having a strong network of friends, family, and educators; involvement in the community; and having people close who affirm their gender identity.

More than three-fourths (78%) of youth surveyed identified as cisgender, 13.9% identified as questioning, and 7.9% identified as transgender.

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of transgender adolescents said they had experienced serious sexual violence, 73% reported experiencing violence in their communities, and 63% said they had been exposed to aggressive behavior. In contrast, 6.7% of trans youth said they had ever committed sexual violence, while 7.4% of cisgender teens surveyed, or 243 students, said they had done so.

“The relative lack of visibility of gender minority youth in sexual violence research is unacceptable,” Dr. Ybarra told this news organization. “To be counted, one needs to be seen. We aimed to start addressing this exclusion with the current study.”

The findings provide a lens into the levels of sexual violence that LGBTQIA+ youth experience and an opportunity to provide more inclusive care, according to Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, FSAHM, Distinguished Professor of Pediatrics, director of the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, and medical director of community and population health at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in the study.

“There are unfortunately pervasive and harmful stereotypes in our society about the ‘sexual deviancy’ attributed to LGBTQIA+ individuals,” Dr. Miller told this news organization. “This study adds to the research literature that counters and challenges these harmful – and inaccurate – perceptions.”

Dr. Miller said clinicians can help this population by offering youth accurate information about relevant support and services, including how to help a friend.

Programs that providers could incorporate include gender transformative approaches, which guide youth to examine gender norms and inequities and that develop leadership skills.

Such programs are more common outside the United States and have been shown to decrease LGBTQIA+ youth exposure to sexual violence, she said.

Dr. Miller said more research is needed to understand the contexts in which gender minority youth experience sexual violence to guide prevention efforts: “We need to move beyond individual-focused interventions to considering community-level interventions to create safer and more inclusive spaces for all youth.”

Dr. Miller has received royalties for writing content for UptoDate Wolters Kluwer outside of the current study. Dr. Ybarra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender and nonbinary adolescents are twice as likely to experience sexual violence as their cisgendered peers but are less likely to attempt rape or commit sexual assault, researchers have found.

The study, which was published online  in JAMA Network Open, is among the first on the sexual violence that trans, nonbinary, and other gender nonconforming adolescents experience. Previous studies have focused on adults.

“In the busy world of clinical care, it is essential that clinicians be aware of potential disparities their patients are navigating,” said Michele Ybarra, PhD, MPH, president and research director of the Center for Innovative Public Health Research, San Clemente, California, who led the study. “This includes sexual violence victimization for gender minority youth and the need to talk about consent and boundaries for youth of all genders.”

Dr. Ybarra said that while clinicians may be aware that transgender young people face stigma, discrimination, and bullying, they may not be aware that trans youth are also the targets of sexual violence.

Studies indicate that health care providers and communities have significant misconceptions about sexually explicit behavior among trans and nonbinary teens. Misconceptions can lead to discrimination, resulting in higher rates of drug abuse, dropping out of school, suicide, and homelessness.

Dr. Ybarra and her colleagues surveyed 911 trans, nonbinary, or questioning youth on Instagram and Facebook through a collaboration with Growing Up With Media, a national longitudinal survey designed to investigate sexual violence during adolescence.

They also surveyed 3,282 cisgender persons aged 14-16 years who were recruited to the study between June 2018 and March 2020. The term “cisgender” refers to youth who identify with their gender at birth.

The questionnaires asked teens about gender identity, race, economic status, and support systems at home. Factors associated with not experiencing sexual violence included having a strong network of friends, family, and educators; involvement in the community; and having people close who affirm their gender identity.

More than three-fourths (78%) of youth surveyed identified as cisgender, 13.9% identified as questioning, and 7.9% identified as transgender.

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of transgender adolescents said they had experienced serious sexual violence, 73% reported experiencing violence in their communities, and 63% said they had been exposed to aggressive behavior. In contrast, 6.7% of trans youth said they had ever committed sexual violence, while 7.4% of cisgender teens surveyed, or 243 students, said they had done so.

“The relative lack of visibility of gender minority youth in sexual violence research is unacceptable,” Dr. Ybarra told this news organization. “To be counted, one needs to be seen. We aimed to start addressing this exclusion with the current study.”

The findings provide a lens into the levels of sexual violence that LGBTQIA+ youth experience and an opportunity to provide more inclusive care, according to Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, FSAHM, Distinguished Professor of Pediatrics, director of the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, and medical director of community and population health at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in the study.

“There are unfortunately pervasive and harmful stereotypes in our society about the ‘sexual deviancy’ attributed to LGBTQIA+ individuals,” Dr. Miller told this news organization. “This study adds to the research literature that counters and challenges these harmful – and inaccurate – perceptions.”

Dr. Miller said clinicians can help this population by offering youth accurate information about relevant support and services, including how to help a friend.

Programs that providers could incorporate include gender transformative approaches, which guide youth to examine gender norms and inequities and that develop leadership skills.

Such programs are more common outside the United States and have been shown to decrease LGBTQIA+ youth exposure to sexual violence, she said.

Dr. Miller said more research is needed to understand the contexts in which gender minority youth experience sexual violence to guide prevention efforts: “We need to move beyond individual-focused interventions to considering community-level interventions to create safer and more inclusive spaces for all youth.”

Dr. Miller has received royalties for writing content for UptoDate Wolters Kluwer outside of the current study. Dr. Ybarra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender and nonbinary adolescents are twice as likely to experience sexual violence as their cisgendered peers but are less likely to attempt rape or commit sexual assault, researchers have found.

The study, which was published online  in JAMA Network Open, is among the first on the sexual violence that trans, nonbinary, and other gender nonconforming adolescents experience. Previous studies have focused on adults.

“In the busy world of clinical care, it is essential that clinicians be aware of potential disparities their patients are navigating,” said Michele Ybarra, PhD, MPH, president and research director of the Center for Innovative Public Health Research, San Clemente, California, who led the study. “This includes sexual violence victimization for gender minority youth and the need to talk about consent and boundaries for youth of all genders.”

Dr. Ybarra said that while clinicians may be aware that transgender young people face stigma, discrimination, and bullying, they may not be aware that trans youth are also the targets of sexual violence.

Studies indicate that health care providers and communities have significant misconceptions about sexually explicit behavior among trans and nonbinary teens. Misconceptions can lead to discrimination, resulting in higher rates of drug abuse, dropping out of school, suicide, and homelessness.

Dr. Ybarra and her colleagues surveyed 911 trans, nonbinary, or questioning youth on Instagram and Facebook through a collaboration with Growing Up With Media, a national longitudinal survey designed to investigate sexual violence during adolescence.

They also surveyed 3,282 cisgender persons aged 14-16 years who were recruited to the study between June 2018 and March 2020. The term “cisgender” refers to youth who identify with their gender at birth.

The questionnaires asked teens about gender identity, race, economic status, and support systems at home. Factors associated with not experiencing sexual violence included having a strong network of friends, family, and educators; involvement in the community; and having people close who affirm their gender identity.

More than three-fourths (78%) of youth surveyed identified as cisgender, 13.9% identified as questioning, and 7.9% identified as transgender.

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of transgender adolescents said they had experienced serious sexual violence, 73% reported experiencing violence in their communities, and 63% said they had been exposed to aggressive behavior. In contrast, 6.7% of trans youth said they had ever committed sexual violence, while 7.4% of cisgender teens surveyed, or 243 students, said they had done so.

“The relative lack of visibility of gender minority youth in sexual violence research is unacceptable,” Dr. Ybarra told this news organization. “To be counted, one needs to be seen. We aimed to start addressing this exclusion with the current study.”

The findings provide a lens into the levels of sexual violence that LGBTQIA+ youth experience and an opportunity to provide more inclusive care, according to Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, FSAHM, Distinguished Professor of Pediatrics, director of the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, and medical director of community and population health at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in the study.

“There are unfortunately pervasive and harmful stereotypes in our society about the ‘sexual deviancy’ attributed to LGBTQIA+ individuals,” Dr. Miller told this news organization. “This study adds to the research literature that counters and challenges these harmful – and inaccurate – perceptions.”

Dr. Miller said clinicians can help this population by offering youth accurate information about relevant support and services, including how to help a friend.

Programs that providers could incorporate include gender transformative approaches, which guide youth to examine gender norms and inequities and that develop leadership skills.

Such programs are more common outside the United States and have been shown to decrease LGBTQIA+ youth exposure to sexual violence, she said.

Dr. Miller said more research is needed to understand the contexts in which gender minority youth experience sexual violence to guide prevention efforts: “We need to move beyond individual-focused interventions to considering community-level interventions to create safer and more inclusive spaces for all youth.”

Dr. Miller has received royalties for writing content for UptoDate Wolters Kluwer outside of the current study. Dr. Ybarra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with new-onset schizophrenia often ask psychiatrist Stephen R. Marder, MD, whether they’ll need to be on medications forever to treat the disorder. Now, he said, research is showing that the answer isn’t always yes.

In many cases, “it’s an open question” whether lifelong medical treatment is needed, said Dr. Marder, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spoke in a presentation about schizophrenia treatment at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

According to Dr. Marder, research about relapses suggests that there may be a subpopulation of patients who can come off antipsychotics and remain in remission or partial remission. “The problem,” he said, “is that group is very hard to identify.”

Indeed, he highlighted a 2017 study that suggested perhaps 20% of patients with schizophrenia may remain stable over the long term after stopping medication. The study noted choosing the best candidates isn’t simple, as “we do not have clinical measures or biomarkers that allow us to identify them prospectively. Because relapses and delays in the treatment of psychosis have been associated with poorer outcomes, there may be risk associated with withholding or discontinuing medication.”

There are more complications. There’s some evidence that antipsychotic drugs reduce brain volume, Dr. Marder said. But on the other hand, each psychotic episode can itself be harmful. “There is clear evidence that for each psychotic episode, they can take longer to improve, and they need higher doses.”

What to do? “My suggestion for most patients is to keep them on a relatively mild dose of an antipsychotic,” Dr. Marder said, “then to have a gradual decrease in the dose. I’ve done it in many patients.”

Which drug is best over the long term – oral or long-acting injectable antipsychotics? “It’s a hard question to answer because if you rely on randomized clinical trials – with patients who signed consent and are willing to be in a study like that – the subjects are sometimes not the ones who benefit the most from the long-acting drugs. So for many of the randomized clinical trials, the data was incomplete, and it was hard to make the case.”

But if you combine meta-analyses and cohort studies, as a 2021 study did, “you come up with a really clear answer: LAIs [long-acting injectables] are superior. They lead to a superior outcomes when it comes to rehospitalization and psychotic relapse,” Dr. Marder said.

That study reported that “LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 [18.3%] of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 [76.8%] comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 [4.9%] comparisons.”
 

More schizophrenia treatment pearls

People with schizophrenia – including those who aren’t on medication – face three times the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as the general population, “maybe because there’s a shared genetic risk for both disorders,” Dr. Marder said. “Those of you who have a lot of schizophrenia patients, I suspect you’re monitoring if they’re treating their type 2 diabetes and their obesity.”

Which antipsychotics are the best option for these patients? He highlighted a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis that offers helpful insight into connections between 18 drugs and factors like weight and cholesterol.

Dr. Marder added that “if somebody has an elevation in their triglycerides or [hemoglobin] A1c in one single fasting blood glucose during the first 6 weeks of treatment, even if they haven’t been rated, it suggests that they’re developing insulin resistance.” At that point, he said, it’s a good idea to reconsider the medication choice.

Also, he said, keep in mind that “there’s substantial evidence that metformin is the appropriate treatment for patients who begin to demonstrate insulin resistance. It also works sometimes for weight loss.”

Exercise in people with schizophrenia can pay important dividends. A 2016 meta-analysis suggests that “not only does exercise for people with schizophrenia lead to better cardiovascular health, it’s good for the brain and improves cognitive functioning,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s not easy sometimes to get people with schizophrenia to exercise, but it’s many times worth the effort.”

Dr. Marder reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Newron, Merck, and Biogen; editor of UptoDate and Schizophrenia Bulletin Open; and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with new-onset schizophrenia often ask psychiatrist Stephen R. Marder, MD, whether they’ll need to be on medications forever to treat the disorder. Now, he said, research is showing that the answer isn’t always yes.

In many cases, “it’s an open question” whether lifelong medical treatment is needed, said Dr. Marder, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spoke in a presentation about schizophrenia treatment at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

According to Dr. Marder, research about relapses suggests that there may be a subpopulation of patients who can come off antipsychotics and remain in remission or partial remission. “The problem,” he said, “is that group is very hard to identify.”

Indeed, he highlighted a 2017 study that suggested perhaps 20% of patients with schizophrenia may remain stable over the long term after stopping medication. The study noted choosing the best candidates isn’t simple, as “we do not have clinical measures or biomarkers that allow us to identify them prospectively. Because relapses and delays in the treatment of psychosis have been associated with poorer outcomes, there may be risk associated with withholding or discontinuing medication.”

There are more complications. There’s some evidence that antipsychotic drugs reduce brain volume, Dr. Marder said. But on the other hand, each psychotic episode can itself be harmful. “There is clear evidence that for each psychotic episode, they can take longer to improve, and they need higher doses.”

What to do? “My suggestion for most patients is to keep them on a relatively mild dose of an antipsychotic,” Dr. Marder said, “then to have a gradual decrease in the dose. I’ve done it in many patients.”

Which drug is best over the long term – oral or long-acting injectable antipsychotics? “It’s a hard question to answer because if you rely on randomized clinical trials – with patients who signed consent and are willing to be in a study like that – the subjects are sometimes not the ones who benefit the most from the long-acting drugs. So for many of the randomized clinical trials, the data was incomplete, and it was hard to make the case.”

But if you combine meta-analyses and cohort studies, as a 2021 study did, “you come up with a really clear answer: LAIs [long-acting injectables] are superior. They lead to a superior outcomes when it comes to rehospitalization and psychotic relapse,” Dr. Marder said.

That study reported that “LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 [18.3%] of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 [76.8%] comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 [4.9%] comparisons.”
 

More schizophrenia treatment pearls

People with schizophrenia – including those who aren’t on medication – face three times the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as the general population, “maybe because there’s a shared genetic risk for both disorders,” Dr. Marder said. “Those of you who have a lot of schizophrenia patients, I suspect you’re monitoring if they’re treating their type 2 diabetes and their obesity.”

Which antipsychotics are the best option for these patients? He highlighted a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis that offers helpful insight into connections between 18 drugs and factors like weight and cholesterol.

Dr. Marder added that “if somebody has an elevation in their triglycerides or [hemoglobin] A1c in one single fasting blood glucose during the first 6 weeks of treatment, even if they haven’t been rated, it suggests that they’re developing insulin resistance.” At that point, he said, it’s a good idea to reconsider the medication choice.

Also, he said, keep in mind that “there’s substantial evidence that metformin is the appropriate treatment for patients who begin to demonstrate insulin resistance. It also works sometimes for weight loss.”

Exercise in people with schizophrenia can pay important dividends. A 2016 meta-analysis suggests that “not only does exercise for people with schizophrenia lead to better cardiovascular health, it’s good for the brain and improves cognitive functioning,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s not easy sometimes to get people with schizophrenia to exercise, but it’s many times worth the effort.”

Dr. Marder reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Newron, Merck, and Biogen; editor of UptoDate and Schizophrenia Bulletin Open; and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with new-onset schizophrenia often ask psychiatrist Stephen R. Marder, MD, whether they’ll need to be on medications forever to treat the disorder. Now, he said, research is showing that the answer isn’t always yes.

In many cases, “it’s an open question” whether lifelong medical treatment is needed, said Dr. Marder, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spoke in a presentation about schizophrenia treatment at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

According to Dr. Marder, research about relapses suggests that there may be a subpopulation of patients who can come off antipsychotics and remain in remission or partial remission. “The problem,” he said, “is that group is very hard to identify.”

Indeed, he highlighted a 2017 study that suggested perhaps 20% of patients with schizophrenia may remain stable over the long term after stopping medication. The study noted choosing the best candidates isn’t simple, as “we do not have clinical measures or biomarkers that allow us to identify them prospectively. Because relapses and delays in the treatment of psychosis have been associated with poorer outcomes, there may be risk associated with withholding or discontinuing medication.”

There are more complications. There’s some evidence that antipsychotic drugs reduce brain volume, Dr. Marder said. But on the other hand, each psychotic episode can itself be harmful. “There is clear evidence that for each psychotic episode, they can take longer to improve, and they need higher doses.”

What to do? “My suggestion for most patients is to keep them on a relatively mild dose of an antipsychotic,” Dr. Marder said, “then to have a gradual decrease in the dose. I’ve done it in many patients.”

Which drug is best over the long term – oral or long-acting injectable antipsychotics? “It’s a hard question to answer because if you rely on randomized clinical trials – with patients who signed consent and are willing to be in a study like that – the subjects are sometimes not the ones who benefit the most from the long-acting drugs. So for many of the randomized clinical trials, the data was incomplete, and it was hard to make the case.”

But if you combine meta-analyses and cohort studies, as a 2021 study did, “you come up with a really clear answer: LAIs [long-acting injectables] are superior. They lead to a superior outcomes when it comes to rehospitalization and psychotic relapse,” Dr. Marder said.

That study reported that “LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 [18.3%] of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 [76.8%] comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 [4.9%] comparisons.”
 

More schizophrenia treatment pearls

People with schizophrenia – including those who aren’t on medication – face three times the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as the general population, “maybe because there’s a shared genetic risk for both disorders,” Dr. Marder said. “Those of you who have a lot of schizophrenia patients, I suspect you’re monitoring if they’re treating their type 2 diabetes and their obesity.”

Which antipsychotics are the best option for these patients? He highlighted a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis that offers helpful insight into connections between 18 drugs and factors like weight and cholesterol.

Dr. Marder added that “if somebody has an elevation in their triglycerides or [hemoglobin] A1c in one single fasting blood glucose during the first 6 weeks of treatment, even if they haven’t been rated, it suggests that they’re developing insulin resistance.” At that point, he said, it’s a good idea to reconsider the medication choice.

Also, he said, keep in mind that “there’s substantial evidence that metformin is the appropriate treatment for patients who begin to demonstrate insulin resistance. It also works sometimes for weight loss.”

Exercise in people with schizophrenia can pay important dividends. A 2016 meta-analysis suggests that “not only does exercise for people with schizophrenia lead to better cardiovascular health, it’s good for the brain and improves cognitive functioning,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s not easy sometimes to get people with schizophrenia to exercise, but it’s many times worth the effort.”

Dr. Marder reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Newron, Merck, and Biogen; editor of UptoDate and Schizophrenia Bulletin Open; and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

Trauma surgeons are in the tough position of seeing victims just after gun violence across the United States, and they have some advice.

Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”

These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.

“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
 

Firsthand perspective

“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.

Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.

“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.

One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.

“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.

On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”

Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.

“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings

“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.

“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.

“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
 

A public health crisis

“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.

A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.

The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”

“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”

The recommendations address these areas:

• Gun ownership
• Firearm registration
• Licensure
• Education and training
• Ownership responsibilities
• Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
• Safety innovation and technology
• Research
• The culture of violence
• Social isolation and mental health

For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”

This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.

“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.

For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.

The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
 

Research and reporting reforms

The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.

“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”

Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.

In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.

Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.

“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
 

The time is now

Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.

“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”

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

Trauma surgeons are in the tough position of seeing victims just after gun violence across the United States, and they have some advice.

Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”

These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.

“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
 

Firsthand perspective

“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.

Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.

“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.

One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.

“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.

On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”

Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.

“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings

“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.

“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.

“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
 

A public health crisis

“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.

A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.

The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”

“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”

The recommendations address these areas:

• Gun ownership
• Firearm registration
• Licensure
• Education and training
• Ownership responsibilities
• Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
• Safety innovation and technology
• Research
• The culture of violence
• Social isolation and mental health

For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”

This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.

“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.

For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.

The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
 

Research and reporting reforms

The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.

“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”

Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.

In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.

Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.

“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
 

The time is now

Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.

“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”

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

Trauma surgeons are in the tough position of seeing victims just after gun violence across the United States, and they have some advice.

Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”

These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.

“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
 

Firsthand perspective

“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.

Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.

“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.

One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.

“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.

On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”

Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.

“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings

“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.

“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.

“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
 

A public health crisis

“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.

A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.

The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”

“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”

The recommendations address these areas:

• Gun ownership
• Firearm registration
• Licensure
• Education and training
• Ownership responsibilities
• Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
• Safety innovation and technology
• Research
• The culture of violence
• Social isolation and mental health

For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”

This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.

“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.

For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.

The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
 

Research and reporting reforms

The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.

“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”

Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.

In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.

Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.

“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
 

The time is now

Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.

“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severe schizophrenia who fail to respond to treatment with standard doses of second-generation antipsychotics show significant improvement with – and tolerance of – higher maintenance doses of the drugs, new research shows.

“The use of [higher doses of] long-acting injectable second-generation antipsychotics shows improvement not only in treatment adherence, but also in diminished relapses and suicide attempts compared with other previous treatment options used with these severely ill patients,” lead author Juan Jose Fernandez-Miranda, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fernandez-Miranda, of the Mental Health Service of the Principality of Asturias, in Gijón, Spain, underscored the tolerability of the novel approach of high doses: “No important side effects were found, and less than occurred with previous treatments,” he said.

While higher doses of second-generation antipsychotics for patients with treatment refractory schizophrenia are sometimes considered necessary, particularly with acute psychosis, evidence of benefits of the approach is lacking, and there are concerns about adverse events such as extrapyramidal symptoms and hyperprolactinemia.

To investigate the effects, the authors evaluated patients in a community-based, case managed program with severe, (CGI-S = 5), resistant schizophrenia.

All had been treated in the previous 3 years with at least two different antipsychotics, including clozapine in a few cases, with poor outcomes when receiving standard doses, and eligibility included being at risk of medication noncompliance, and/or experiencing a lack of effectiveness or adverse effects with previous antipsychotics.

For the second 3 years of the observational study, they were treated with doses of at least 75 mg of risperidone long-acting injectable (n = 60), 175 mg or more of monthly paliperidone palmitate (n = 60), or 600 mg or higher of aripiprazole once monthly (n = 30).

During the study, the average antipsychotic doses were: risperidone 111.2 mg/14 days; paliperidone palmitate 231.2 mg. eq./28 days; and aripiprazole 780 mg/28 days. In addition to the intensive pharmacological intervention, patients received psychosocial integrated intervention, as in the previous 3 years.

Over the 3 years with the higher maintenance doses, significant improvements were observed with all of the injectable treatment groups in terms of decreases on the Clinical Global Impression Scale – Severity score (CGI-S; P < .01) and in the four areas of the World Health Organization Disability Schedule (WHO-DAS), including in self-care, occupational, family, and social measures (P < .01 through P < .001).

Scores on the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS), increased with all of the long-acting injectables (P < .01), particularly with paliperidone palmitate and aripiprazole.

Patients had significant decreases in hospital admissions at the end of the 36-month treatments and reductions in suicide attempts (both P < .001), compared with the previous 3 years, without any differences across the three injectables.

Importantly, tolerability was good for all of the long-acting antidepressants, with reductions in side effects as well as biological parameters compared with previous treatments, notably in the aripiprazole group.

While reductions in weight and prolactin levels were observed in all long-acting treatments, the differences were statistically significant only among patients treated with aripiprazole (P < .05), as was expected.

Two patients treated with aripiprazole discontinued treatment because of side effects from treatment, and the rate was five with paliperidone palmitate and nine with risperidone.

One person in the aripiprazole group discontinued because of a lack of effectiveness, while two discontinued in the paliperidone palmitate group and four with risperidone.

Dr. Fernandez-Miranda noted that “both the intensive case-managed multicomponent treatment and use of high doses of long-acting antipsychotics were in all probability linked to the high adherence and positive clinical outcomes.”

The results provide evidence that “long-acting second-generation antipsychotics are a remarkable option for patients with severe schizophrenia and a background of treatment discontinuation or intolerable adverse effects with other antipsychotics,” Dr. Fernandez-Miranda added.

“We suggest that, in some illness critical conditions, high doses of long-acting second-generation antipsychotics could represent an alternative to clozapine,” he added.


 

Some hesitation warranted

Commenting on the study, T. Scott Stroup, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, noted the key limitations of a lack of randomization and comparison group of clozapine or typical-dose long-acting injectables.

“In addition, pre-post or mirror-image designs may be affected by expectation bias and regression to the mean,” he said in an interview.

“I don’t doubt that some patients do well on relatively high doses of long-acting injectable medications and that some tolerate these doses,” he noted “Most adverse effects are dose related, but without a typical-dose comparison group we cannot assess this.”

Ultimately, Dr. Stroup recommends sticking with standard recommendations – at least to start.

“My take-home message is that clozapine remains the treatment of choice for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and in most cases clozapine should be tried before considering high-dose long-acting injectables,” he said. 

“If there is uncertainty about whether someone is taking a prescribed oral antipsychotic medication, then a trial of a typical dose of a long-acting injectable is a good option to rule out pseudo-treatment resistance.”

Furthermore, “this study doesn’t affect the recommendation that people who need antipsychotic medications should receive the lowest effective dose,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Stroup had no disclosures to report.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severe schizophrenia who fail to respond to treatment with standard doses of second-generation antipsychotics show significant improvement with – and tolerance of – higher maintenance doses of the drugs, new research shows.

“The use of [higher doses of] long-acting injectable second-generation antipsychotics shows improvement not only in treatment adherence, but also in diminished relapses and suicide attempts compared with other previous treatment options used with these severely ill patients,” lead author Juan Jose Fernandez-Miranda, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fernandez-Miranda, of the Mental Health Service of the Principality of Asturias, in Gijón, Spain, underscored the tolerability of the novel approach of high doses: “No important side effects were found, and less than occurred with previous treatments,” he said.

While higher doses of second-generation antipsychotics for patients with treatment refractory schizophrenia are sometimes considered necessary, particularly with acute psychosis, evidence of benefits of the approach is lacking, and there are concerns about adverse events such as extrapyramidal symptoms and hyperprolactinemia.

To investigate the effects, the authors evaluated patients in a community-based, case managed program with severe, (CGI-S = 5), resistant schizophrenia.

All had been treated in the previous 3 years with at least two different antipsychotics, including clozapine in a few cases, with poor outcomes when receiving standard doses, and eligibility included being at risk of medication noncompliance, and/or experiencing a lack of effectiveness or adverse effects with previous antipsychotics.

For the second 3 years of the observational study, they were treated with doses of at least 75 mg of risperidone long-acting injectable (n = 60), 175 mg or more of monthly paliperidone palmitate (n = 60), or 600 mg or higher of aripiprazole once monthly (n = 30).

During the study, the average antipsychotic doses were: risperidone 111.2 mg/14 days; paliperidone palmitate 231.2 mg. eq./28 days; and aripiprazole 780 mg/28 days. In addition to the intensive pharmacological intervention, patients received psychosocial integrated intervention, as in the previous 3 years.

Over the 3 years with the higher maintenance doses, significant improvements were observed with all of the injectable treatment groups in terms of decreases on the Clinical Global Impression Scale – Severity score (CGI-S; P < .01) and in the four areas of the World Health Organization Disability Schedule (WHO-DAS), including in self-care, occupational, family, and social measures (P < .01 through P < .001).

Scores on the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS), increased with all of the long-acting injectables (P < .01), particularly with paliperidone palmitate and aripiprazole.

Patients had significant decreases in hospital admissions at the end of the 36-month treatments and reductions in suicide attempts (both P < .001), compared with the previous 3 years, without any differences across the three injectables.

Importantly, tolerability was good for all of the long-acting antidepressants, with reductions in side effects as well as biological parameters compared with previous treatments, notably in the aripiprazole group.

While reductions in weight and prolactin levels were observed in all long-acting treatments, the differences were statistically significant only among patients treated with aripiprazole (P < .05), as was expected.

Two patients treated with aripiprazole discontinued treatment because of side effects from treatment, and the rate was five with paliperidone palmitate and nine with risperidone.

One person in the aripiprazole group discontinued because of a lack of effectiveness, while two discontinued in the paliperidone palmitate group and four with risperidone.

Dr. Fernandez-Miranda noted that “both the intensive case-managed multicomponent treatment and use of high doses of long-acting antipsychotics were in all probability linked to the high adherence and positive clinical outcomes.”

The results provide evidence that “long-acting second-generation antipsychotics are a remarkable option for patients with severe schizophrenia and a background of treatment discontinuation or intolerable adverse effects with other antipsychotics,” Dr. Fernandez-Miranda added.

“We suggest that, in some illness critical conditions, high doses of long-acting second-generation antipsychotics could represent an alternative to clozapine,” he added.


 

Some hesitation warranted

Commenting on the study, T. Scott Stroup, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, noted the key limitations of a lack of randomization and comparison group of clozapine or typical-dose long-acting injectables.

“In addition, pre-post or mirror-image designs may be affected by expectation bias and regression to the mean,” he said in an interview.

“I don’t doubt that some patients do well on relatively high doses of long-acting injectable medications and that some tolerate these doses,” he noted “Most adverse effects are dose related, but without a typical-dose comparison group we cannot assess this.”

Ultimately, Dr. Stroup recommends sticking with standard recommendations – at least to start.

“My take-home message is that clozapine remains the treatment of choice for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and in most cases clozapine should be tried before considering high-dose long-acting injectables,” he said. 

“If there is uncertainty about whether someone is taking a prescribed oral antipsychotic medication, then a trial of a typical dose of a long-acting injectable is a good option to rule out pseudo-treatment resistance.”

Furthermore, “this study doesn’t affect the recommendation that people who need antipsychotic medications should receive the lowest effective dose,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Stroup had no disclosures to report.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severe schizophrenia who fail to respond to treatment with standard doses of second-generation antipsychotics show significant improvement with – and tolerance of – higher maintenance doses of the drugs, new research shows.

“The use of [higher doses of] long-acting injectable second-generation antipsychotics shows improvement not only in treatment adherence, but also in diminished relapses and suicide attempts compared with other previous treatment options used with these severely ill patients,” lead author Juan Jose Fernandez-Miranda, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fernandez-Miranda, of the Mental Health Service of the Principality of Asturias, in Gijón, Spain, underscored the tolerability of the novel approach of high doses: “No important side effects were found, and less than occurred with previous treatments,” he said.

While higher doses of second-generation antipsychotics for patients with treatment refractory schizophrenia are sometimes considered necessary, particularly with acute psychosis, evidence of benefits of the approach is lacking, and there are concerns about adverse events such as extrapyramidal symptoms and hyperprolactinemia.

To investigate the effects, the authors evaluated patients in a community-based, case managed program with severe, (CGI-S = 5), resistant schizophrenia.

All had been treated in the previous 3 years with at least two different antipsychotics, including clozapine in a few cases, with poor outcomes when receiving standard doses, and eligibility included being at risk of medication noncompliance, and/or experiencing a lack of effectiveness or adverse effects with previous antipsychotics.

For the second 3 years of the observational study, they were treated with doses of at least 75 mg of risperidone long-acting injectable (n = 60), 175 mg or more of monthly paliperidone palmitate (n = 60), or 600 mg or higher of aripiprazole once monthly (n = 30).

During the study, the average antipsychotic doses were: risperidone 111.2 mg/14 days; paliperidone palmitate 231.2 mg. eq./28 days; and aripiprazole 780 mg/28 days. In addition to the intensive pharmacological intervention, patients received psychosocial integrated intervention, as in the previous 3 years.

Over the 3 years with the higher maintenance doses, significant improvements were observed with all of the injectable treatment groups in terms of decreases on the Clinical Global Impression Scale – Severity score (CGI-S; P < .01) and in the four areas of the World Health Organization Disability Schedule (WHO-DAS), including in self-care, occupational, family, and social measures (P < .01 through P < .001).

Scores on the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS), increased with all of the long-acting injectables (P < .01), particularly with paliperidone palmitate and aripiprazole.

Patients had significant decreases in hospital admissions at the end of the 36-month treatments and reductions in suicide attempts (both P < .001), compared with the previous 3 years, without any differences across the three injectables.

Importantly, tolerability was good for all of the long-acting antidepressants, with reductions in side effects as well as biological parameters compared with previous treatments, notably in the aripiprazole group.

While reductions in weight and prolactin levels were observed in all long-acting treatments, the differences were statistically significant only among patients treated with aripiprazole (P < .05), as was expected.

Two patients treated with aripiprazole discontinued treatment because of side effects from treatment, and the rate was five with paliperidone palmitate and nine with risperidone.

One person in the aripiprazole group discontinued because of a lack of effectiveness, while two discontinued in the paliperidone palmitate group and four with risperidone.

Dr. Fernandez-Miranda noted that “both the intensive case-managed multicomponent treatment and use of high doses of long-acting antipsychotics were in all probability linked to the high adherence and positive clinical outcomes.”

The results provide evidence that “long-acting second-generation antipsychotics are a remarkable option for patients with severe schizophrenia and a background of treatment discontinuation or intolerable adverse effects with other antipsychotics,” Dr. Fernandez-Miranda added.

“We suggest that, in some illness critical conditions, high doses of long-acting second-generation antipsychotics could represent an alternative to clozapine,” he added.


 

Some hesitation warranted

Commenting on the study, T. Scott Stroup, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, noted the key limitations of a lack of randomization and comparison group of clozapine or typical-dose long-acting injectables.

“In addition, pre-post or mirror-image designs may be affected by expectation bias and regression to the mean,” he said in an interview.

“I don’t doubt that some patients do well on relatively high doses of long-acting injectable medications and that some tolerate these doses,” he noted “Most adverse effects are dose related, but without a typical-dose comparison group we cannot assess this.”

Ultimately, Dr. Stroup recommends sticking with standard recommendations – at least to start.

“My take-home message is that clozapine remains the treatment of choice for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and in most cases clozapine should be tried before considering high-dose long-acting injectables,” he said. 

“If there is uncertainty about whether someone is taking a prescribed oral antipsychotic medication, then a trial of a typical dose of a long-acting injectable is a good option to rule out pseudo-treatment resistance.”

Furthermore, “this study doesn’t affect the recommendation that people who need antipsychotic medications should receive the lowest effective dose,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Stroup had no disclosures to report.

NEW ORLEANS – The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the academic and psychological stability of medical students, leading to high rates of burnout.

Researchers surveyed 613 medical students representing all years of a medical program during the last week of the Spring semester of 2021.

Based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS), more than half (54%) of the students had symptoms of burnout.

Eighty percent of students scored high on emotional exhaustion, 57% scored high on cynicism, and 36% scored low on academic effectiveness.

Compared with male medical students, female medical students were more apt to exhibit signs of burnout (60% vs. 44%), emotional exhaustion (80% vs. 73%), and cynicism (62% vs. 49%).

After adjusting for associated factors, female medical students were significantly more likely to suffer from burnout than male students (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.70; P < .001).

Smoking was also linked to higher likelihood of burnout among medical students (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.18-3.81; P < .05). The death of a family member from COVID-19 also put medical students at heightened risk for burnout (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P < .05).

The survey results were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Annual Meeting.

The findings point to the need to study burnout prevalence in universities and develop strategies to promote the mental health of future physicians, presenter Sofia Jezzini-Martínez, fourth-year medical student, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico, wrote in her conference abstract.

In related research presented at the APA meeting, researchers surveyed second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students from California during the pandemic.

Roughly 80% exhibited symptoms of anxiety and 68% exhibited depressive symptoms, of whom about 18% also reported having thoughts of suicide.

Yet only about half of the medical students exhibiting anxiety or depressive symptoms sought help from a mental health professional, and 20% reported using substances to cope with stress.

“Given that the pandemic is ongoing, we hope to draw attention to mental health needs of medical students and influence medical schools to direct appropriate and timely resources to this group,” presenter Sarthak Angal, MD, psychiatry resident, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, California, wrote in his conference abstract.
 

Managing expectations

Weighing in on medical student burnout, Ihuoma Njoku, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, noted that, “particularly for women in multiple fields, including medicine, there’s a lot of burden placed on them.”

“Women are pulled in a lot of different directions and have increased demands, which may help explain their higher rate of burnout,” Dr. Njoku commented.

She noted that these surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “a period when students’ education experience was a lot different than what they expected and maybe what they wanted.”

Dr. Njoku noted that the challenges of the pandemic are particularly hard on fourth-year medical students.

“A big part of fourth year is applying to residency, and many were doing virtual interviews for residency. That makes it hard to really get an appreciation of the place you will spend the next three to eight years of your life,” she told this news organization.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the academic and psychological stability of medical students, leading to high rates of burnout.

Researchers surveyed 613 medical students representing all years of a medical program during the last week of the Spring semester of 2021.

Based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS), more than half (54%) of the students had symptoms of burnout.

Eighty percent of students scored high on emotional exhaustion, 57% scored high on cynicism, and 36% scored low on academic effectiveness.

Compared with male medical students, female medical students were more apt to exhibit signs of burnout (60% vs. 44%), emotional exhaustion (80% vs. 73%), and cynicism (62% vs. 49%).

After adjusting for associated factors, female medical students were significantly more likely to suffer from burnout than male students (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.70; P < .001).

Smoking was also linked to higher likelihood of burnout among medical students (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.18-3.81; P < .05). The death of a family member from COVID-19 also put medical students at heightened risk for burnout (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P < .05).

The survey results were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Annual Meeting.

The findings point to the need to study burnout prevalence in universities and develop strategies to promote the mental health of future physicians, presenter Sofia Jezzini-Martínez, fourth-year medical student, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico, wrote in her conference abstract.

In related research presented at the APA meeting, researchers surveyed second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students from California during the pandemic.

Roughly 80% exhibited symptoms of anxiety and 68% exhibited depressive symptoms, of whom about 18% also reported having thoughts of suicide.

Yet only about half of the medical students exhibiting anxiety or depressive symptoms sought help from a mental health professional, and 20% reported using substances to cope with stress.

“Given that the pandemic is ongoing, we hope to draw attention to mental health needs of medical students and influence medical schools to direct appropriate and timely resources to this group,” presenter Sarthak Angal, MD, psychiatry resident, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, California, wrote in his conference abstract.
 

Managing expectations

Weighing in on medical student burnout, Ihuoma Njoku, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, noted that, “particularly for women in multiple fields, including medicine, there’s a lot of burden placed on them.”

“Women are pulled in a lot of different directions and have increased demands, which may help explain their higher rate of burnout,” Dr. Njoku commented.

She noted that these surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “a period when students’ education experience was a lot different than what they expected and maybe what they wanted.”

Dr. Njoku noted that the challenges of the pandemic are particularly hard on fourth-year medical students.

“A big part of fourth year is applying to residency, and many were doing virtual interviews for residency. That makes it hard to really get an appreciation of the place you will spend the next three to eight years of your life,” she told this news organization.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the academic and psychological stability of medical students, leading to high rates of burnout.

Researchers surveyed 613 medical students representing all years of a medical program during the last week of the Spring semester of 2021.

Based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS), more than half (54%) of the students had symptoms of burnout.

Eighty percent of students scored high on emotional exhaustion, 57% scored high on cynicism, and 36% scored low on academic effectiveness.

Compared with male medical students, female medical students were more apt to exhibit signs of burnout (60% vs. 44%), emotional exhaustion (80% vs. 73%), and cynicism (62% vs. 49%).

After adjusting for associated factors, female medical students were significantly more likely to suffer from burnout than male students (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.70; P < .001).

Smoking was also linked to higher likelihood of burnout among medical students (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.18-3.81; P < .05). The death of a family member from COVID-19 also put medical students at heightened risk for burnout (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P < .05).

The survey results were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Annual Meeting.

The findings point to the need to study burnout prevalence in universities and develop strategies to promote the mental health of future physicians, presenter Sofia Jezzini-Martínez, fourth-year medical student, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico, wrote in her conference abstract.

In related research presented at the APA meeting, researchers surveyed second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students from California during the pandemic.

Roughly 80% exhibited symptoms of anxiety and 68% exhibited depressive symptoms, of whom about 18% also reported having thoughts of suicide.

Yet only about half of the medical students exhibiting anxiety or depressive symptoms sought help from a mental health professional, and 20% reported using substances to cope with stress.

“Given that the pandemic is ongoing, we hope to draw attention to mental health needs of medical students and influence medical schools to direct appropriate and timely resources to this group,” presenter Sarthak Angal, MD, psychiatry resident, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, California, wrote in his conference abstract.
 

Managing expectations

Weighing in on medical student burnout, Ihuoma Njoku, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, noted that, “particularly for women in multiple fields, including medicine, there’s a lot of burden placed on them.”

“Women are pulled in a lot of different directions and have increased demands, which may help explain their higher rate of burnout,” Dr. Njoku commented.

She noted that these surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “a period when students’ education experience was a lot different than what they expected and maybe what they wanted.”

Dr. Njoku noted that the challenges of the pandemic are particularly hard on fourth-year medical students.

“A big part of fourth year is applying to residency, and many were doing virtual interviews for residency. That makes it hard to really get an appreciation of the place you will spend the next three to eight years of your life,” she told this news organization.

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of knowing better than you

Stop us if you’ve heard this before. One of your parents (let’s be honest, probably your ornery father) refuses to go to the doctor. You tell him it’s for the best, but in his words, “Doctors don’t know nothin’. I’m fine.” How many TV shows with grumpy fathers feature this exact plot in an episode as the frustrated child attempts increasingly convoluted traps to encourage the stubborn parent to get himself to the doctor?

rudall30/iStockphoto.com

As is so often the case, wacky sitcoms reflect reality, according to a new study from the Journal of the Economics of Aging. In a massive survey of 80,000 Europeans aged 50 years and older, the researchers found that individuals who were overconfident and rated their health as better than it actually was visited their doctor 17% less often than did those who correctly judge their own health. Fewer medical visits leaves them more vulnerable to chronic disease, since they’re not getting the preventive care they need to catch illnesses early.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the inverse is also true: People who underestimate their health status visit the doctor 21% more often. On the one hand, regular visits to the doctor are a good thing, as is awareness of how healthy one really is. On the other hand, though, extra visits cost money and time, especially relevant in an aging society with high public health costs.

Nobody likes visiting the doctor, but it is kind of important, especially as we age and our bodies start to let us down. Confidence is fine, but don’t be overly confident. And if you do go, don’t be like a certain former president of the United States. Don’t pay a sycophant to look in your general direction and then declare that you are in very good (great!) condition on Twitter. That’s not how medicine is meant to work.
 

Your liver stays toddler age

Rapid cell regeneration might seem like something straight out of a sci-fi novel, but it happens to your liver all the time. So much so that the human liver is never a day over 3 years old.

Peter Gridley/Getty Images

How’s that possible? The liver deals with a lot of toxic substances in its job as the Brita filter of the human body, so it has a unique capacity among organs to regenerate itself after damage.

Dr. Olaf Bergmann and his team at Technical University Dresden’s (Germany) Center for Regenerative Therapies used retrospective radiocarbon birth dating to determine the age of the livers of a group of people who died at the ages of 20-84 years. The results were the same regardless of age.

This information could be a complete game changer for understanding cell regeneration. It’s important in determining cancer cell formation in the liver but also if new heart muscle cells can be generated in people with cardiovascular disease, which the researchers are looking into.

So sure, your liver may be totally capable of filtering those drinks at happy hour, but as old as it is, a juice box might be more appropriate.
 

To bee, or not to bee? That is the vacation

Sleeping is pretty important for humans, no doubt about that, so anything that improves sleep is worth considering, right? But how far would you go for a good night’s sleep? Would you be willing to travel to Italy to experience the ultimate white-noise generator?

Airbnb

For more on this exciting, yet also sleep-inducing, news story, let’s go to the village of Grottole in southern Italy, where we meet bee keeper and Airbnb host Rocco Filomeno. ”This is the first place in the world where you can sleep immersed in the distinctive sound and aroma of the bees, experiencing ‘bee-therapy’ in the most authentic and natural way,” he said in a written statement for Airbnb.

Mr. Filomeno worked with local NGO Wonder Grottole and a self-build specialist to take the next step in tiny-house evolution. The resulting structure cost just $17,000 – crowdfunded, of course, and built by 25 local bee-lievers (aka volunteers) – and consists of a single room surrounded by nine apiaries, which contain a combined total of 1 million working bees. It is now available to book on Airbnb, and guests “will receive their first lesson on bees and how to live with them,” Airbnb said.

The immersion in bee sound/scent is fully realized through the building’s most prominent interior feature, a screened box in the ceiling with a working hive that allows guests to see the bees and fall asleep to the “gently humming sound,” Airbnb explained. The sound from the hive is said to have a soothing effect that “acts as salve to day-to-day stressors,” according to the BBC.

This is just the start of a trend and we want in on it. Should our tiny house feature the sights/smells/sounds of angry rattlesnakes or a swarm of locusts?
 

Joysticks can make the world a better place

Someday, it might be possible for surgeons to treat a stroke or aneurysm during the “golden hour,” even if they’re not in the same hospital as the patient. MIT engineers have created a robotic system that can be controlled remotely with a modified joystick, so the patient can go to a closer, smaller hospital and be treated by a surgeon at a larger facility through live imaging.

Xuanhe Zhao et al/MIT

Endovascular surgery seems difficult enough with the patient and doctor in the same hospital, “but having a robot twist with the same level of sophistication [as a surgeon] is challenging,” Yoonho Kim, lead author of a study in Science Robotics, said in a written statement. “Our system is based on a fundamentally different mechanism.”

It involves “a medical-grade robotic arm with a magnet attached to its wrist. With a joystick and live imaging, an operator can adjust the magnet’s orientation and manipulate the arm to guide a soft and thin magnetic wire through arteries and vessels,” MIT explained in the statement.

The system was tested using life-like models, and it took each surgeon about an hour of training to learn how to use the new joystick and other equipment. Another perk: No exposure to radiation from x-ray imaging.

If someone you know is obsessed with video games, stop thinking “slacker” and start thinking “neurosurgeon.”

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of knowing better than you

Stop us if you’ve heard this before. One of your parents (let’s be honest, probably your ornery father) refuses to go to the doctor. You tell him it’s for the best, but in his words, “Doctors don’t know nothin’. I’m fine.” How many TV shows with grumpy fathers feature this exact plot in an episode as the frustrated child attempts increasingly convoluted traps to encourage the stubborn parent to get himself to the doctor?

rudall30/iStockphoto.com

As is so often the case, wacky sitcoms reflect reality, according to a new study from the Journal of the Economics of Aging. In a massive survey of 80,000 Europeans aged 50 years and older, the researchers found that individuals who were overconfident and rated their health as better than it actually was visited their doctor 17% less often than did those who correctly judge their own health. Fewer medical visits leaves them more vulnerable to chronic disease, since they’re not getting the preventive care they need to catch illnesses early.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the inverse is also true: People who underestimate their health status visit the doctor 21% more often. On the one hand, regular visits to the doctor are a good thing, as is awareness of how healthy one really is. On the other hand, though, extra visits cost money and time, especially relevant in an aging society with high public health costs.

Nobody likes visiting the doctor, but it is kind of important, especially as we age and our bodies start to let us down. Confidence is fine, but don’t be overly confident. And if you do go, don’t be like a certain former president of the United States. Don’t pay a sycophant to look in your general direction and then declare that you are in very good (great!) condition on Twitter. That’s not how medicine is meant to work.
 

Your liver stays toddler age

Rapid cell regeneration might seem like something straight out of a sci-fi novel, but it happens to your liver all the time. So much so that the human liver is never a day over 3 years old.

Peter Gridley/Getty Images

How’s that possible? The liver deals with a lot of toxic substances in its job as the Brita filter of the human body, so it has a unique capacity among organs to regenerate itself after damage.

Dr. Olaf Bergmann and his team at Technical University Dresden’s (Germany) Center for Regenerative Therapies used retrospective radiocarbon birth dating to determine the age of the livers of a group of people who died at the ages of 20-84 years. The results were the same regardless of age.

This information could be a complete game changer for understanding cell regeneration. It’s important in determining cancer cell formation in the liver but also if new heart muscle cells can be generated in people with cardiovascular disease, which the researchers are looking into.

So sure, your liver may be totally capable of filtering those drinks at happy hour, but as old as it is, a juice box might be more appropriate.
 

To bee, or not to bee? That is the vacation

Sleeping is pretty important for humans, no doubt about that, so anything that improves sleep is worth considering, right? But how far would you go for a good night’s sleep? Would you be willing to travel to Italy to experience the ultimate white-noise generator?

Airbnb

For more on this exciting, yet also sleep-inducing, news story, let’s go to the village of Grottole in southern Italy, where we meet bee keeper and Airbnb host Rocco Filomeno. ”This is the first place in the world where you can sleep immersed in the distinctive sound and aroma of the bees, experiencing ‘bee-therapy’ in the most authentic and natural way,” he said in a written statement for Airbnb.

Mr. Filomeno worked with local NGO Wonder Grottole and a self-build specialist to take the next step in tiny-house evolution. The resulting structure cost just $17,000 – crowdfunded, of course, and built by 25 local bee-lievers (aka volunteers) – and consists of a single room surrounded by nine apiaries, which contain a combined total of 1 million working bees. It is now available to book on Airbnb, and guests “will receive their first lesson on bees and how to live with them,” Airbnb said.

The immersion in bee sound/scent is fully realized through the building’s most prominent interior feature, a screened box in the ceiling with a working hive that allows guests to see the bees and fall asleep to the “gently humming sound,” Airbnb explained. The sound from the hive is said to have a soothing effect that “acts as salve to day-to-day stressors,” according to the BBC.

This is just the start of a trend and we want in on it. Should our tiny house feature the sights/smells/sounds of angry rattlesnakes or a swarm of locusts?
 

Joysticks can make the world a better place

Someday, it might be possible for surgeons to treat a stroke or aneurysm during the “golden hour,” even if they’re not in the same hospital as the patient. MIT engineers have created a robotic system that can be controlled remotely with a modified joystick, so the patient can go to a closer, smaller hospital and be treated by a surgeon at a larger facility through live imaging.

Xuanhe Zhao et al/MIT

Endovascular surgery seems difficult enough with the patient and doctor in the same hospital, “but having a robot twist with the same level of sophistication [as a surgeon] is challenging,” Yoonho Kim, lead author of a study in Science Robotics, said in a written statement. “Our system is based on a fundamentally different mechanism.”

It involves “a medical-grade robotic arm with a magnet attached to its wrist. With a joystick and live imaging, an operator can adjust the magnet’s orientation and manipulate the arm to guide a soft and thin magnetic wire through arteries and vessels,” MIT explained in the statement.

The system was tested using life-like models, and it took each surgeon about an hour of training to learn how to use the new joystick and other equipment. Another perk: No exposure to radiation from x-ray imaging.

If someone you know is obsessed with video games, stop thinking “slacker” and start thinking “neurosurgeon.”

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of knowing better than you

Stop us if you’ve heard this before. One of your parents (let’s be honest, probably your ornery father) refuses to go to the doctor. You tell him it’s for the best, but in his words, “Doctors don’t know nothin’. I’m fine.” How many TV shows with grumpy fathers feature this exact plot in an episode as the frustrated child attempts increasingly convoluted traps to encourage the stubborn parent to get himself to the doctor?

rudall30/iStockphoto.com

As is so often the case, wacky sitcoms reflect reality, according to a new study from the Journal of the Economics of Aging. In a massive survey of 80,000 Europeans aged 50 years and older, the researchers found that individuals who were overconfident and rated their health as better than it actually was visited their doctor 17% less often than did those who correctly judge their own health. Fewer medical visits leaves them more vulnerable to chronic disease, since they’re not getting the preventive care they need to catch illnesses early.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the inverse is also true: People who underestimate their health status visit the doctor 21% more often. On the one hand, regular visits to the doctor are a good thing, as is awareness of how healthy one really is. On the other hand, though, extra visits cost money and time, especially relevant in an aging society with high public health costs.

Nobody likes visiting the doctor, but it is kind of important, especially as we age and our bodies start to let us down. Confidence is fine, but don’t be overly confident. And if you do go, don’t be like a certain former president of the United States. Don’t pay a sycophant to look in your general direction and then declare that you are in very good (great!) condition on Twitter. That’s not how medicine is meant to work.
 

Your liver stays toddler age

Rapid cell regeneration might seem like something straight out of a sci-fi novel, but it happens to your liver all the time. So much so that the human liver is never a day over 3 years old.

Peter Gridley/Getty Images

How’s that possible? The liver deals with a lot of toxic substances in its job as the Brita filter of the human body, so it has a unique capacity among organs to regenerate itself after damage.

Dr. Olaf Bergmann and his team at Technical University Dresden’s (Germany) Center for Regenerative Therapies used retrospective radiocarbon birth dating to determine the age of the livers of a group of people who died at the ages of 20-84 years. The results were the same regardless of age.

This information could be a complete game changer for understanding cell regeneration. It’s important in determining cancer cell formation in the liver but also if new heart muscle cells can be generated in people with cardiovascular disease, which the researchers are looking into.

So sure, your liver may be totally capable of filtering those drinks at happy hour, but as old as it is, a juice box might be more appropriate.
 

To bee, or not to bee? That is the vacation

Sleeping is pretty important for humans, no doubt about that, so anything that improves sleep is worth considering, right? But how far would you go for a good night’s sleep? Would you be willing to travel to Italy to experience the ultimate white-noise generator?

Airbnb

For more on this exciting, yet also sleep-inducing, news story, let’s go to the village of Grottole in southern Italy, where we meet bee keeper and Airbnb host Rocco Filomeno. ”This is the first place in the world where you can sleep immersed in the distinctive sound and aroma of the bees, experiencing ‘bee-therapy’ in the most authentic and natural way,” he said in a written statement for Airbnb.

Mr. Filomeno worked with local NGO Wonder Grottole and a self-build specialist to take the next step in tiny-house evolution. The resulting structure cost just $17,000 – crowdfunded, of course, and built by 25 local bee-lievers (aka volunteers) – and consists of a single room surrounded by nine apiaries, which contain a combined total of 1 million working bees. It is now available to book on Airbnb, and guests “will receive their first lesson on bees and how to live with them,” Airbnb said.

The immersion in bee sound/scent is fully realized through the building’s most prominent interior feature, a screened box in the ceiling with a working hive that allows guests to see the bees and fall asleep to the “gently humming sound,” Airbnb explained. The sound from the hive is said to have a soothing effect that “acts as salve to day-to-day stressors,” according to the BBC.

This is just the start of a trend and we want in on it. Should our tiny house feature the sights/smells/sounds of angry rattlesnakes or a swarm of locusts?
 

Joysticks can make the world a better place

Someday, it might be possible for surgeons to treat a stroke or aneurysm during the “golden hour,” even if they’re not in the same hospital as the patient. MIT engineers have created a robotic system that can be controlled remotely with a modified joystick, so the patient can go to a closer, smaller hospital and be treated by a surgeon at a larger facility through live imaging.

Xuanhe Zhao et al/MIT

Endovascular surgery seems difficult enough with the patient and doctor in the same hospital, “but having a robot twist with the same level of sophistication [as a surgeon] is challenging,” Yoonho Kim, lead author of a study in Science Robotics, said in a written statement. “Our system is based on a fundamentally different mechanism.”

It involves “a medical-grade robotic arm with a magnet attached to its wrist. With a joystick and live imaging, an operator can adjust the magnet’s orientation and manipulate the arm to guide a soft and thin magnetic wire through arteries and vessels,” MIT explained in the statement.

The system was tested using life-like models, and it took each surgeon about an hour of training to learn how to use the new joystick and other equipment. Another perk: No exposure to radiation from x-ray imaging.

If someone you know is obsessed with video games, stop thinking “slacker” and start thinking “neurosurgeon.”