Clinical Psychiatry News

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

The popular antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel) seems to calm patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who develop psychiatric distress after taking corticosteroids, a new case review says.

“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.

In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.

“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”

For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).

All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.

Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”

Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.

As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”

In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”

And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”

Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
 

The popular antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel) seems to calm patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who develop psychiatric distress after taking corticosteroids, a new case review says.

“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.

In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.

“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”

For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).

All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.

Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”

Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.

As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”

In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”

And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”

Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
 

The popular antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel) seems to calm patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who develop psychiatric distress after taking corticosteroids, a new case review says.

“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.

In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.

“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”

For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).

All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.

Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”

Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.

As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”

In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”

And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”

Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
 

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.

These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.

“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.

If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Noteworthy limitations

Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.

She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.

These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.

Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
 

Replication needed

Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.

Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.

The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.

A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.

The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.

“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
 

New and important hypothesis?

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”

He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.

However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.

It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.

“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, it is quite surprising that it has not been noticed sooner,” he said.

Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”

The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.

These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.

“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.

If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Noteworthy limitations

Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.

She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.

These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.

Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
 

Replication needed

Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.

Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.

The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.

A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.

The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.

“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
 

New and important hypothesis?

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”

He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.

However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.

It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.

“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, it is quite surprising that it has not been noticed sooner,” he said.

Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”

The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.

These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.

“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.

If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Noteworthy limitations

Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.

She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.

These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.

Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
 

Replication needed

Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.

Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.

The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.

A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.

The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.

“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
 

New and important hypothesis?

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”

He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.

However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.

It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.

“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, it is quite surprising that it has not been noticed sooner,” he said.

Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”

The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Near-infrared light delivered to the brain using a specially designed helmet appears to improve memory, motor function, and processing skills in cognitively healthy older adults, in new findings that suggest potential benefit in patients with dementia.

Studies in animals and people have shown “many positive effects” with near-infrared transcranial photobiomodulation therapy (PBM-T), study investigator Paul Chazot, PhD, department of biosciences, Durham University, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

For example, PBM-T has been shown to increase blood circulation (which keeps the brain well oxygenated), boost mitochondria function in neurons, protect neurons from oxidative stress, and help maintain neuronal connectivity, Dr. Chazot explained.

PBM-T has also been shown to reduce amyloid and phosphorylated tau load, pathological signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

“All these in combination improve memory performance and mobility,” Dr. Chazot said.

The study was published online October 18 in Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 
 

Promising early data

In the study, 14 healthy adults, aged 45 to 70 years, received 6 minutes of transcranial PBM-T twice daily at a wavelength of 1,068 nanometers over 4 weeks. PBM-T was delivered via a helmet that comprised 14 air-cooled light emitting diode panel arrays. A control group of 13 adults used a sham PBM-T helmet.

Before and after active and sham treatment, all participants completed the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (ANAM) – a computer-based tool designed to detect speed and accuracy of attention, memory, and thinking ability.

According to the research team, compared with sham PBM-T, those receiving active PBM-T showed significant improvement in motor function (finger tapping), working memory, delayed memory, and brain processing speed, the research team reports. No adverse effects were reported.

“This study complements our other recent studies, which showed improvement in memory performance with no obvious side effects,” said Dr. Chazot.

“While this is a pilot study and more research is needed, there are promising indications that therapy involving infrared light might also be beneficial for people living with dementia, and this is worth exploring,” Dr. Chazot added in a news release.

The PBM-T helmet was devised by first author Gordon Dougal, MBChB, of Maculume in the U.K., and a general practitioner based in Durham.

A recent study by Mr. Dougal, Dr. Chazot, and collaborators in the United States provides early evidence that PBM-T can improve memory in adults with dementia.

In that study, 39 patients received 6 minutes of PBM-T twice a day for 8 weeks, alongside a control group of 17 patients who received sham PBM-T.

After 8 weeks, there was about a 20% improvement in Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores in the active PBM-T group compared with roughly a 6% improvement in the control group, the researchers report in the journal Cureus.
 

More research needed

Reached for comment, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said using light to stimulate the brain is “an emerging technology.”

“However, this is a very small study in healthy volunteers, therefore we don’t know from this work alone if this approach would work as an intervention or reduce [the] risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Edelmayer told this news organization.

“That being said, we’re starting to see companies looking at similar, noninvasive methods of stimulating the brain. For example, brain stimulation devices have been applied to other neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s to try to prevent degeneration of brain cells,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. 

She said more research is needed to understand how photobiomodulation might be used as a therapy or prevention for cognitive decline and dementia.

“Specifically, we need to understand what parts of the brain need to be targeted and at what point(s) in the disease course this treatment would be most impactful. If proven to be effective, this could possibly be part of an approach that’s combined with other treatments, like drugs and lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Edelmayer.

The Alzheimer’s Association is funding a number of projects looking at noninvasive treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, including two clinical trials looking at deep brain stimulation and photobiomodulation.

Maculume provided funding for the study. Mr. Dougal is a majority shareholder in the company, which manufactures the helmet device used in the study. Dr. Chazot, study co-authors, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Near-infrared light delivered to the brain using a specially designed helmet appears to improve memory, motor function, and processing skills in cognitively healthy older adults, in new findings that suggest potential benefit in patients with dementia.

Studies in animals and people have shown “many positive effects” with near-infrared transcranial photobiomodulation therapy (PBM-T), study investigator Paul Chazot, PhD, department of biosciences, Durham University, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

For example, PBM-T has been shown to increase blood circulation (which keeps the brain well oxygenated), boost mitochondria function in neurons, protect neurons from oxidative stress, and help maintain neuronal connectivity, Dr. Chazot explained.

PBM-T has also been shown to reduce amyloid and phosphorylated tau load, pathological signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

“All these in combination improve memory performance and mobility,” Dr. Chazot said.

The study was published online October 18 in Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 
 

Promising early data

In the study, 14 healthy adults, aged 45 to 70 years, received 6 minutes of transcranial PBM-T twice daily at a wavelength of 1,068 nanometers over 4 weeks. PBM-T was delivered via a helmet that comprised 14 air-cooled light emitting diode panel arrays. A control group of 13 adults used a sham PBM-T helmet.

Before and after active and sham treatment, all participants completed the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (ANAM) – a computer-based tool designed to detect speed and accuracy of attention, memory, and thinking ability.

According to the research team, compared with sham PBM-T, those receiving active PBM-T showed significant improvement in motor function (finger tapping), working memory, delayed memory, and brain processing speed, the research team reports. No adverse effects were reported.

“This study complements our other recent studies, which showed improvement in memory performance with no obvious side effects,” said Dr. Chazot.

“While this is a pilot study and more research is needed, there are promising indications that therapy involving infrared light might also be beneficial for people living with dementia, and this is worth exploring,” Dr. Chazot added in a news release.

The PBM-T helmet was devised by first author Gordon Dougal, MBChB, of Maculume in the U.K., and a general practitioner based in Durham.

A recent study by Mr. Dougal, Dr. Chazot, and collaborators in the United States provides early evidence that PBM-T can improve memory in adults with dementia.

In that study, 39 patients received 6 minutes of PBM-T twice a day for 8 weeks, alongside a control group of 17 patients who received sham PBM-T.

After 8 weeks, there was about a 20% improvement in Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores in the active PBM-T group compared with roughly a 6% improvement in the control group, the researchers report in the journal Cureus.
 

More research needed

Reached for comment, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said using light to stimulate the brain is “an emerging technology.”

“However, this is a very small study in healthy volunteers, therefore we don’t know from this work alone if this approach would work as an intervention or reduce [the] risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Edelmayer told this news organization.

“That being said, we’re starting to see companies looking at similar, noninvasive methods of stimulating the brain. For example, brain stimulation devices have been applied to other neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s to try to prevent degeneration of brain cells,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. 

She said more research is needed to understand how photobiomodulation might be used as a therapy or prevention for cognitive decline and dementia.

“Specifically, we need to understand what parts of the brain need to be targeted and at what point(s) in the disease course this treatment would be most impactful. If proven to be effective, this could possibly be part of an approach that’s combined with other treatments, like drugs and lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Edelmayer.

The Alzheimer’s Association is funding a number of projects looking at noninvasive treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, including two clinical trials looking at deep brain stimulation and photobiomodulation.

Maculume provided funding for the study. Mr. Dougal is a majority shareholder in the company, which manufactures the helmet device used in the study. Dr. Chazot, study co-authors, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Near-infrared light delivered to the brain using a specially designed helmet appears to improve memory, motor function, and processing skills in cognitively healthy older adults, in new findings that suggest potential benefit in patients with dementia.

Studies in animals and people have shown “many positive effects” with near-infrared transcranial photobiomodulation therapy (PBM-T), study investigator Paul Chazot, PhD, department of biosciences, Durham University, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

For example, PBM-T has been shown to increase blood circulation (which keeps the brain well oxygenated), boost mitochondria function in neurons, protect neurons from oxidative stress, and help maintain neuronal connectivity, Dr. Chazot explained.

PBM-T has also been shown to reduce amyloid and phosphorylated tau load, pathological signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

“All these in combination improve memory performance and mobility,” Dr. Chazot said.

The study was published online October 18 in Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 
 

Promising early data

In the study, 14 healthy adults, aged 45 to 70 years, received 6 minutes of transcranial PBM-T twice daily at a wavelength of 1,068 nanometers over 4 weeks. PBM-T was delivered via a helmet that comprised 14 air-cooled light emitting diode panel arrays. A control group of 13 adults used a sham PBM-T helmet.

Before and after active and sham treatment, all participants completed the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (ANAM) – a computer-based tool designed to detect speed and accuracy of attention, memory, and thinking ability.

According to the research team, compared with sham PBM-T, those receiving active PBM-T showed significant improvement in motor function (finger tapping), working memory, delayed memory, and brain processing speed, the research team reports. No adverse effects were reported.

“This study complements our other recent studies, which showed improvement in memory performance with no obvious side effects,” said Dr. Chazot.

“While this is a pilot study and more research is needed, there are promising indications that therapy involving infrared light might also be beneficial for people living with dementia, and this is worth exploring,” Dr. Chazot added in a news release.

The PBM-T helmet was devised by first author Gordon Dougal, MBChB, of Maculume in the U.K., and a general practitioner based in Durham.

A recent study by Mr. Dougal, Dr. Chazot, and collaborators in the United States provides early evidence that PBM-T can improve memory in adults with dementia.

In that study, 39 patients received 6 minutes of PBM-T twice a day for 8 weeks, alongside a control group of 17 patients who received sham PBM-T.

After 8 weeks, there was about a 20% improvement in Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores in the active PBM-T group compared with roughly a 6% improvement in the control group, the researchers report in the journal Cureus.
 

More research needed

Reached for comment, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said using light to stimulate the brain is “an emerging technology.”

“However, this is a very small study in healthy volunteers, therefore we don’t know from this work alone if this approach would work as an intervention or reduce [the] risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Edelmayer told this news organization.

“That being said, we’re starting to see companies looking at similar, noninvasive methods of stimulating the brain. For example, brain stimulation devices have been applied to other neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s to try to prevent degeneration of brain cells,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. 

She said more research is needed to understand how photobiomodulation might be used as a therapy or prevention for cognitive decline and dementia.

“Specifically, we need to understand what parts of the brain need to be targeted and at what point(s) in the disease course this treatment would be most impactful. If proven to be effective, this could possibly be part of an approach that’s combined with other treatments, like drugs and lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Edelmayer.

The Alzheimer’s Association is funding a number of projects looking at noninvasive treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, including two clinical trials looking at deep brain stimulation and photobiomodulation.

Maculume provided funding for the study. Mr. Dougal is a majority shareholder in the company, which manufactures the helmet device used in the study. Dr. Chazot, study co-authors, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Irwin Marcus, MD, died on October 3. He was 102. Dedicated to his profession, Dr. Marcus was seeing patients until earlier this year. His long and illustrious career included creating and founding programs and organizations wherever he saw a need.

Among his many professional accomplishments, Dr. Marcus helped found the child and adolescent psychiatry program at Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, and was one of the founders and a past president of the New Orleans Psychoanalytic Institute.

Dr. Marcus was also former chairman of the psychiatric department at Touro Infirmary and clinical professor emeritus at Louisiana State University Medical School, both in New Orleans.

“He initiated a number of traditions that are still important to us – community outreach, treating underserved youth, and strong interdisciplinary relationships,” Charles H. Zeanah, Jr., MD, current Mary Peters Sellars-Polchow chair of psychiatry at Tulane, told this news organization.

Dr. Marcus also continued to treat adult patients by phone and at his home until mid-June of this year. He had also started writing a children’s book.

It was his “tremendous work ethic” and creativity that kept him working past the age of 100, his wife, Angela Hill, a former news anchor, said in an interview.

Even vision loss resulting from macular degeneration and long-standing hearing problems did not stop him, she noted.

“He was always thinking creatively; he was always thinking intellectually,” said Ms. Hill. “That was, to me, the marvel of him.”
 

Wartime service, brain-trauma clinic

Born in Chicago in 1919, Dr. Marcus studied first at the Illinois Institute of Technology before transferring to the University of Illinois School of Medicine.

Neurosurgery was an early interest, and Dr. Marcus undertook his medical residency at Cook County Hospital in Chicago. The day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the U.S. Army.

During World War II, Dr. Marcus served in the Army Medical Corps and treated brain injuries and other wounds before he was badly injured himself and had to return to the United States for treatment.

After his recovery, he worked at an army medical facility in El Paso, Texas. On the basis of his earlier experiences, he founded a clinic there to diagnose and treat brain trauma.

After the war, Dr. Marcus continued his studies at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York. Soon, his focus became psychiatry, child psychiatry, and psychoanalysis.

In 1951, Dr. Marcus accepted a position at Tulane. He created the Family Study Unit there the following year. Dr. Zeanah noted that the original name was chosen out of concern over the stigma associated with the term “child psychiatry.”

However, the environment changed relatively quickly, and the unit soon became known as Tulane Child Psychiatry.
 

Research, books, helmet patent

Dr. Marcus received Tulane’s first research grant in child psychiatry from the National Institute of Mental Health to investigate the potential mechanisms behind accident-prone children. That interest was inspired by his own clinical experience.

The findings, which were published in Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, showed that being accident prone was a nonspecific response to stressors from multiple sources, including a temperamental disposition, parent-child conflict, and family conflict.

To provide care to young patients, Dr. Marcus collaborated with the Children’s Bureau, the Jewish Children’s Home, the German Protestant’s Orphan Asylum, and Associated Catholic Charities.
 

‘He saved my life’

In 2002, Dr. Marcus participated in the 50th anniversary celebration of Tulane’s child psychiatry program. He returned in 2009 for what would be his final grand rounds presentation, which included an inspiring interview with Dr. Zeanah.

“He talked about the early history of child psychiatry, the things that he’d been trying to do, and some of the challenges that he faced,” Dr. Zeanah said.

Dr. Marcus’s former patients often told Ms. Hill how much he had helped them, she said.

“People would walk up and say, ‘Angela, Irwin won’t tell you this, but he saved my life,’” said Ms. Hill. “A couple walked up at a restaurant, and both of them said, ‘He saved our family.’”

Throughout his professional life, Dr. Marcus continued to strive toward growth and providing aid, she added.

“That is the bottom line of Irwin Marcus: All of his work was to help,” said Ms. Hill.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.

Respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Irwin Marcus, MD, died on October 3. He was 102. Dedicated to his profession, Dr. Marcus was seeing patients until earlier this year. His long and illustrious career included creating and founding programs and organizations wherever he saw a need.

Among his many professional accomplishments, Dr. Marcus helped found the child and adolescent psychiatry program at Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, and was one of the founders and a past president of the New Orleans Psychoanalytic Institute.

Dr. Marcus was also former chairman of the psychiatric department at Touro Infirmary and clinical professor emeritus at Louisiana State University Medical School, both in New Orleans.

“He initiated a number of traditions that are still important to us – community outreach, treating underserved youth, and strong interdisciplinary relationships,” Charles H. Zeanah, Jr., MD, current Mary Peters Sellars-Polchow chair of psychiatry at Tulane, told this news organization.

Dr. Marcus also continued to treat adult patients by phone and at his home until mid-June of this year. He had also started writing a children’s book.

It was his “tremendous work ethic” and creativity that kept him working past the age of 100, his wife, Angela Hill, a former news anchor, said in an interview.

Even vision loss resulting from macular degeneration and long-standing hearing problems did not stop him, she noted.

“He was always thinking creatively; he was always thinking intellectually,” said Ms. Hill. “That was, to me, the marvel of him.”
 

Wartime service, brain-trauma clinic

Born in Chicago in 1919, Dr. Marcus studied first at the Illinois Institute of Technology before transferring to the University of Illinois School of Medicine.

Neurosurgery was an early interest, and Dr. Marcus undertook his medical residency at Cook County Hospital in Chicago. The day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the U.S. Army.

During World War II, Dr. Marcus served in the Army Medical Corps and treated brain injuries and other wounds before he was badly injured himself and had to return to the United States for treatment.

After his recovery, he worked at an army medical facility in El Paso, Texas. On the basis of his earlier experiences, he founded a clinic there to diagnose and treat brain trauma.

After the war, Dr. Marcus continued his studies at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York. Soon, his focus became psychiatry, child psychiatry, and psychoanalysis.

In 1951, Dr. Marcus accepted a position at Tulane. He created the Family Study Unit there the following year. Dr. Zeanah noted that the original name was chosen out of concern over the stigma associated with the term “child psychiatry.”

However, the environment changed relatively quickly, and the unit soon became known as Tulane Child Psychiatry.
 

Research, books, helmet patent

Dr. Marcus received Tulane’s first research grant in child psychiatry from the National Institute of Mental Health to investigate the potential mechanisms behind accident-prone children. That interest was inspired by his own clinical experience.

The findings, which were published in Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, showed that being accident prone was a nonspecific response to stressors from multiple sources, including a temperamental disposition, parent-child conflict, and family conflict.

To provide care to young patients, Dr. Marcus collaborated with the Children’s Bureau, the Jewish Children’s Home, the German Protestant’s Orphan Asylum, and Associated Catholic Charities.
 

‘He saved my life’

In 2002, Dr. Marcus participated in the 50th anniversary celebration of Tulane’s child psychiatry program. He returned in 2009 for what would be his final grand rounds presentation, which included an inspiring interview with Dr. Zeanah.

“He talked about the early history of child psychiatry, the things that he’d been trying to do, and some of the challenges that he faced,” Dr. Zeanah said.

Dr. Marcus’s former patients often told Ms. Hill how much he had helped them, she said.

“People would walk up and say, ‘Angela, Irwin won’t tell you this, but he saved my life,’” said Ms. Hill. “A couple walked up at a restaurant, and both of them said, ‘He saved our family.’”

Throughout his professional life, Dr. Marcus continued to strive toward growth and providing aid, she added.

“That is the bottom line of Irwin Marcus: All of his work was to help,” said Ms. Hill.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.

Respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Irwin Marcus, MD, died on October 3. He was 102. Dedicated to his profession, Dr. Marcus was seeing patients until earlier this year. His long and illustrious career included creating and founding programs and organizations wherever he saw a need.

Among his many professional accomplishments, Dr. Marcus helped found the child and adolescent psychiatry program at Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, and was one of the founders and a past president of the New Orleans Psychoanalytic Institute.

Dr. Marcus was also former chairman of the psychiatric department at Touro Infirmary and clinical professor emeritus at Louisiana State University Medical School, both in New Orleans.

“He initiated a number of traditions that are still important to us – community outreach, treating underserved youth, and strong interdisciplinary relationships,” Charles H. Zeanah, Jr., MD, current Mary Peters Sellars-Polchow chair of psychiatry at Tulane, told this news organization.

Dr. Marcus also continued to treat adult patients by phone and at his home until mid-June of this year. He had also started writing a children’s book.

It was his “tremendous work ethic” and creativity that kept him working past the age of 100, his wife, Angela Hill, a former news anchor, said in an interview.

Even vision loss resulting from macular degeneration and long-standing hearing problems did not stop him, she noted.

“He was always thinking creatively; he was always thinking intellectually,” said Ms. Hill. “That was, to me, the marvel of him.”
 

Wartime service, brain-trauma clinic

Born in Chicago in 1919, Dr. Marcus studied first at the Illinois Institute of Technology before transferring to the University of Illinois School of Medicine.

Neurosurgery was an early interest, and Dr. Marcus undertook his medical residency at Cook County Hospital in Chicago. The day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the U.S. Army.

During World War II, Dr. Marcus served in the Army Medical Corps and treated brain injuries and other wounds before he was badly injured himself and had to return to the United States for treatment.

After his recovery, he worked at an army medical facility in El Paso, Texas. On the basis of his earlier experiences, he founded a clinic there to diagnose and treat brain trauma.

After the war, Dr. Marcus continued his studies at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York. Soon, his focus became psychiatry, child psychiatry, and psychoanalysis.

In 1951, Dr. Marcus accepted a position at Tulane. He created the Family Study Unit there the following year. Dr. Zeanah noted that the original name was chosen out of concern over the stigma associated with the term “child psychiatry.”

However, the environment changed relatively quickly, and the unit soon became known as Tulane Child Psychiatry.
 

Research, books, helmet patent

Dr. Marcus received Tulane’s first research grant in child psychiatry from the National Institute of Mental Health to investigate the potential mechanisms behind accident-prone children. That interest was inspired by his own clinical experience.

The findings, which were published in Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, showed that being accident prone was a nonspecific response to stressors from multiple sources, including a temperamental disposition, parent-child conflict, and family conflict.

To provide care to young patients, Dr. Marcus collaborated with the Children’s Bureau, the Jewish Children’s Home, the German Protestant’s Orphan Asylum, and Associated Catholic Charities.
 

‘He saved my life’

In 2002, Dr. Marcus participated in the 50th anniversary celebration of Tulane’s child psychiatry program. He returned in 2009 for what would be his final grand rounds presentation, which included an inspiring interview with Dr. Zeanah.

“He talked about the early history of child psychiatry, the things that he’d been trying to do, and some of the challenges that he faced,” Dr. Zeanah said.

Dr. Marcus’s former patients often told Ms. Hill how much he had helped them, she said.

“People would walk up and say, ‘Angela, Irwin won’t tell you this, but he saved my life,’” said Ms. Hill. “A couple walked up at a restaurant, and both of them said, ‘He saved our family.’”

Throughout his professional life, Dr. Marcus continued to strive toward growth and providing aid, she added.

“That is the bottom line of Irwin Marcus: All of his work was to help,” said Ms. Hill.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.

The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.

Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.

Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.

The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
 

Social and emotional support

Despite rising mental health care needs, more than 3 in 4 U.S. adults (77.5%) indicated that they always or usually received the social and emotional support they needed during the pandemic period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.

Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.

However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.

Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.

“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.

As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.

One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.

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

In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.

The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.

Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.

Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.

The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
 

Social and emotional support

Despite rising mental health care needs, more than 3 in 4 U.S. adults (77.5%) indicated that they always or usually received the social and emotional support they needed during the pandemic period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.

Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.

However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.

Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.

“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.

As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.

One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.

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

In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.

The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.

Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.

Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.

The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
 

Social and emotional support

Despite rising mental health care needs, more than 3 in 4 U.S. adults (77.5%) indicated that they always or usually received the social and emotional support they needed during the pandemic period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.

Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.

However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.

Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.

“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.

As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.

One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.

alexsokolov/thinkstockphotos.com

She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.

“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.

Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.

“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”

Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly the care he rendered did not fit into the hospital’s scheme of how things should be done; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.

“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”

Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.

“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”

George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”

In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”

Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”

Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.

“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”

In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.

alexsokolov/thinkstockphotos.com

She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.

“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.

Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.

“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”

Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly the care he rendered did not fit into the hospital’s scheme of how things should be done; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.

“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”

Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.

“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”

George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”

In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”

Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”

Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.

“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”

In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.

alexsokolov/thinkstockphotos.com

She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.

“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.

Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.

“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”

Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly the care he rendered did not fit into the hospital’s scheme of how things should be done; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.

“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”

Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.

“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”

George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”

In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”

Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”

Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.

“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”

In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given marketing clearance to CognICA, an artificial intelligence–powered integrated cognitive assessment for the early detection of dementia.

Developed by Cognetivity Neurosciences, CognICA is a 5-minute, computerized cognitive assessment that is completed using an iPad. The test offers several advantages over traditional pen-and-paper–based cognitive tests, the company said in a news release.

“These include its high sensitivity to early-stage cognitive impairment, avoidance of cultural or educational bias, and absence of learning effect upon repeat testing,” the company notes.

Because the test runs on a computer, it can support remote, self-administered testing at scale and is geared toward seamless integration with existing electronic health record systems, they add.

According to the latest Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, published by the Alzheimer’s Association, more than 6 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease. That number is projected to increase to 12.7 million by 2050.

“We’re excited about the opportunity to revolutionize the way cognitive impairment is assessed and managed in the U.S. and make a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” Sina Habibi, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Cognetivity, said in the news release.

The test has already received European regulatory approval as a CE-marked medical device and has been deployed in both primary and specialist clinical care in the U.K.’s National Health Service.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given marketing clearance to CognICA, an artificial intelligence–powered integrated cognitive assessment for the early detection of dementia.

Developed by Cognetivity Neurosciences, CognICA is a 5-minute, computerized cognitive assessment that is completed using an iPad. The test offers several advantages over traditional pen-and-paper–based cognitive tests, the company said in a news release.

“These include its high sensitivity to early-stage cognitive impairment, avoidance of cultural or educational bias, and absence of learning effect upon repeat testing,” the company notes.

Because the test runs on a computer, it can support remote, self-administered testing at scale and is geared toward seamless integration with existing electronic health record systems, they add.

According to the latest Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, published by the Alzheimer’s Association, more than 6 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease. That number is projected to increase to 12.7 million by 2050.

“We’re excited about the opportunity to revolutionize the way cognitive impairment is assessed and managed in the U.S. and make a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” Sina Habibi, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Cognetivity, said in the news release.

The test has already received European regulatory approval as a CE-marked medical device and has been deployed in both primary and specialist clinical care in the U.K.’s National Health Service.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given marketing clearance to CognICA, an artificial intelligence–powered integrated cognitive assessment for the early detection of dementia.

Developed by Cognetivity Neurosciences, CognICA is a 5-minute, computerized cognitive assessment that is completed using an iPad. The test offers several advantages over traditional pen-and-paper–based cognitive tests, the company said in a news release.

“These include its high sensitivity to early-stage cognitive impairment, avoidance of cultural or educational bias, and absence of learning effect upon repeat testing,” the company notes.

Because the test runs on a computer, it can support remote, self-administered testing at scale and is geared toward seamless integration with existing electronic health record systems, they add.

According to the latest Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, published by the Alzheimer’s Association, more than 6 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease. That number is projected to increase to 12.7 million by 2050.

“We’re excited about the opportunity to revolutionize the way cognitive impairment is assessed and managed in the U.S. and make a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” Sina Habibi, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Cognetivity, said in the news release.

The test has already received European regulatory approval as a CE-marked medical device and has been deployed in both primary and specialist clinical care in the U.K.’s National Health Service.

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