Clinical Psychiatry News

SAN FRANCISCO – Much of the information posted on TikTok about dissociative identity disorder (DID), a rare psychiatric disorder, is misleading and not useful, new research shows.

These findings, say investigators, underscore the need for mental health professionals to help counter the spread of false information by creating accurate content and posting it on the popular social media platform.

Isreal Bladimir Munoz

“Health care professionals need to make engaging content to post on social media platforms like YouTube and especially TikTok, to reach wider audiences and combat misinformation about DID,” study investigator Isreal Bladimir Munoz, a fourth-year medical student at University of Texas, Galveston, said in an interview.

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

Popularized by the media

A rare condition affecting less than 1% of the general population, DID involves two or more distinct personality states, along with changes in behavior and memory gaps.

The condition has been popularized in books and the media. Movies such as “Split,” “Psycho,” and “Fight Club” all feature characters with DID.

“These bring awareness about the condition, but also often sensationalize or stigmatize it and reinforce stereotypes,” said Mr. Munoz.

In recent years, social media has become an integral part of everyday life. An estimated 4.2 billion people actively frequent sites such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, and Meta.

Although social media allows for instant communication and the opportunity for self-expression, there are mounting concerns about the spread of misinformation and its potential impact on mental health and privacy, said Mr. Munoz.

To evaluate the quality and accuracy of information about DID on social media, investigators analyzed 60 YouTube and 97 TikTok videos on the condition.

To evaluate the reliability and the intent and reliability of videos, researchers used the modified DISCERN instrument and the Global Quality Scale, a five-point rating system.

Using these tools, the researchers determined whether the selected videos were useful, misleading, or neither. Mr. Munoz said videos were classified as useful if they contained accurate information about the condition and its pathogenesis, treatment, and management.

Researchers determined that for YouTube videos, 51.7% were useful, 6.6% were misleading, and 34.7% were neither. About 43.3% of these videos involved interviews, 21.7% were educational, 15% involved personal stories, 8.3% were films/TV programs, 5% were comedy skits, and 3.3% were another content type.

The highest quality YouTube videos were from educational organizations and health care professionals. The least accurate videos came from independent users and film/TV sources.

As for TikTok videos on DID, only 5.2% were useful, 10.3% were misleading, and 41.7% were neither.

The main sources for TikTok videos were independent organizations, whereas podcasts and film/TV were the least common sources.

The findings, said Mr. Munoz, underscore the need for medical professionals to develop high-quality content about DID and post it on TikTok to counter misinformation on social media.
 

Call to action

In a comment, Howard Y. Liu, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska, Omaha, described the study as “compelling.”

When it comes to public health messages, it’s important to know what social media people are using. Today’s parents are on Twitter and Facebook, whereas their children are more likely to be checking out YouTube and TikTok, said Dr. Liu, chair of the APA’s Council on Communications.

“TikTok is critical because that’s where all the youth eyeballs are,” he said.

The medical profession needs to engage with the platform to reach this next-generation audience and help stop the spread of misinformation about DID, said Dr. Liu. He noted that the APA is looking into undertaking such an initiative.

The study investigators report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Liu reports no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Much of the information posted on TikTok about dissociative identity disorder (DID), a rare psychiatric disorder, is misleading and not useful, new research shows.

These findings, say investigators, underscore the need for mental health professionals to help counter the spread of false information by creating accurate content and posting it on the popular social media platform.

Isreal Bladimir Munoz

“Health care professionals need to make engaging content to post on social media platforms like YouTube and especially TikTok, to reach wider audiences and combat misinformation about DID,” study investigator Isreal Bladimir Munoz, a fourth-year medical student at University of Texas, Galveston, said in an interview.

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

Popularized by the media

A rare condition affecting less than 1% of the general population, DID involves two or more distinct personality states, along with changes in behavior and memory gaps.

The condition has been popularized in books and the media. Movies such as “Split,” “Psycho,” and “Fight Club” all feature characters with DID.

“These bring awareness about the condition, but also often sensationalize or stigmatize it and reinforce stereotypes,” said Mr. Munoz.

In recent years, social media has become an integral part of everyday life. An estimated 4.2 billion people actively frequent sites such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, and Meta.

Although social media allows for instant communication and the opportunity for self-expression, there are mounting concerns about the spread of misinformation and its potential impact on mental health and privacy, said Mr. Munoz.

To evaluate the quality and accuracy of information about DID on social media, investigators analyzed 60 YouTube and 97 TikTok videos on the condition.

To evaluate the reliability and the intent and reliability of videos, researchers used the modified DISCERN instrument and the Global Quality Scale, a five-point rating system.

Using these tools, the researchers determined whether the selected videos were useful, misleading, or neither. Mr. Munoz said videos were classified as useful if they contained accurate information about the condition and its pathogenesis, treatment, and management.

Researchers determined that for YouTube videos, 51.7% were useful, 6.6% were misleading, and 34.7% were neither. About 43.3% of these videos involved interviews, 21.7% were educational, 15% involved personal stories, 8.3% were films/TV programs, 5% were comedy skits, and 3.3% were another content type.

The highest quality YouTube videos were from educational organizations and health care professionals. The least accurate videos came from independent users and film/TV sources.

As for TikTok videos on DID, only 5.2% were useful, 10.3% were misleading, and 41.7% were neither.

The main sources for TikTok videos were independent organizations, whereas podcasts and film/TV were the least common sources.

The findings, said Mr. Munoz, underscore the need for medical professionals to develop high-quality content about DID and post it on TikTok to counter misinformation on social media.
 

Call to action

In a comment, Howard Y. Liu, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska, Omaha, described the study as “compelling.”

When it comes to public health messages, it’s important to know what social media people are using. Today’s parents are on Twitter and Facebook, whereas their children are more likely to be checking out YouTube and TikTok, said Dr. Liu, chair of the APA’s Council on Communications.

“TikTok is critical because that’s where all the youth eyeballs are,” he said.

The medical profession needs to engage with the platform to reach this next-generation audience and help stop the spread of misinformation about DID, said Dr. Liu. He noted that the APA is looking into undertaking such an initiative.

The study investigators report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Liu reports no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Much of the information posted on TikTok about dissociative identity disorder (DID), a rare psychiatric disorder, is misleading and not useful, new research shows.

These findings, say investigators, underscore the need for mental health professionals to help counter the spread of false information by creating accurate content and posting it on the popular social media platform.

Isreal Bladimir Munoz

“Health care professionals need to make engaging content to post on social media platforms like YouTube and especially TikTok, to reach wider audiences and combat misinformation about DID,” study investigator Isreal Bladimir Munoz, a fourth-year medical student at University of Texas, Galveston, said in an interview.

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

Popularized by the media

A rare condition affecting less than 1% of the general population, DID involves two or more distinct personality states, along with changes in behavior and memory gaps.

The condition has been popularized in books and the media. Movies such as “Split,” “Psycho,” and “Fight Club” all feature characters with DID.

“These bring awareness about the condition, but also often sensationalize or stigmatize it and reinforce stereotypes,” said Mr. Munoz.

In recent years, social media has become an integral part of everyday life. An estimated 4.2 billion people actively frequent sites such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, and Meta.

Although social media allows for instant communication and the opportunity for self-expression, there are mounting concerns about the spread of misinformation and its potential impact on mental health and privacy, said Mr. Munoz.

To evaluate the quality and accuracy of information about DID on social media, investigators analyzed 60 YouTube and 97 TikTok videos on the condition.

To evaluate the reliability and the intent and reliability of videos, researchers used the modified DISCERN instrument and the Global Quality Scale, a five-point rating system.

Using these tools, the researchers determined whether the selected videos were useful, misleading, or neither. Mr. Munoz said videos were classified as useful if they contained accurate information about the condition and its pathogenesis, treatment, and management.

Researchers determined that for YouTube videos, 51.7% were useful, 6.6% were misleading, and 34.7% were neither. About 43.3% of these videos involved interviews, 21.7% were educational, 15% involved personal stories, 8.3% were films/TV programs, 5% were comedy skits, and 3.3% were another content type.

The highest quality YouTube videos were from educational organizations and health care professionals. The least accurate videos came from independent users and film/TV sources.

As for TikTok videos on DID, only 5.2% were useful, 10.3% were misleading, and 41.7% were neither.

The main sources for TikTok videos were independent organizations, whereas podcasts and film/TV were the least common sources.

The findings, said Mr. Munoz, underscore the need for medical professionals to develop high-quality content about DID and post it on TikTok to counter misinformation on social media.
 

Call to action

In a comment, Howard Y. Liu, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska, Omaha, described the study as “compelling.”

When it comes to public health messages, it’s important to know what social media people are using. Today’s parents are on Twitter and Facebook, whereas their children are more likely to be checking out YouTube and TikTok, said Dr. Liu, chair of the APA’s Council on Communications.

“TikTok is critical because that’s where all the youth eyeballs are,” he said.

The medical profession needs to engage with the platform to reach this next-generation audience and help stop the spread of misinformation about DID, said Dr. Liu. He noted that the APA is looking into undertaking such an initiative.

The study investigators report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Liu reports no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

The old man was restrained at the last moment from jumping off the hospital’s fifth floor atrium parapet. He was suffering from terminal cancer and had been racked with chronic, severe pain for months.

The consult recognized symptoms of depression arising from his continuous physical suffering, advising that a male aide be dispatched to sit with the man and that he be put on a regimen of 10 mg of methadone twice a day to alleviate the pain. The following day the man was calm; he no longer wanted to kill himself. He expressed a strong desire to go home, return to gardening, and to play with his grandchildren.

Dr. Behar

Most of the 47,000 suicides that occur in the United States every year are preventable.¹ Our national policy on this front has been nothing short of an abject failure. The government implemented a system with limited effect on completed suicides – a telephone hotline. This hotline is not called by the most common suicide victims: male, old, and quiet.²

The consequences of this national policy disaster have been profound, resulting in the biggest loss of productive years of life for any fatal condition.³ The grief experienced by the families of those who commit suicide is far greater than normal bereavement: The cause of death of their loved ones was not an unfortunate accident or a disease, it was an intentional act, and families take it personally.

One of the greatest achievements of psychiatry during the 20th century was the lowering of suicide rates in prisons by 70% with no treatment, no additional staffing, and no additional expenditures of funds. Today if inmates threaten suicide, they are immediately placed under eyesight supervision by guards. The federal pamphlet that describes this protocol was published in 1995 and is freely available online.⁴

Half of all suicide attempts are made by individuals who are legally drunk.⁵ Watch them for 6 hours and then ask them if they want to kill themselves and the response will almost invariably be “Of course not,” with the risk of further attempts dissipating in step with their blood alcohol level. The best resources to provide this kind of intervention are responsible adult family members, at no cost to the government. Indeed, in many cases family supervision is superior to that provided by a locked psychiatric ward with three staff members chasing after 20 agitated people all night long. The one-on-one attention that a family member can provide is free as well as far more personal and insightful, and more sincerely caring.

Guarantees in the field of medicine are rare. But, one such guarantee is that after their mood has improved, 100% of people will be thankful that they did not hurt themselves.⁶ This means that successful treatment will prevent 100% of all suicides.⁷ Not all treatments are successful, but 95% can be.⁸ At autopsy, few successful suicide victims have psychiatric medications in their system.⁹ The urge to kill oneself might best be characterized as a temporary chemical alteration of the brain causing delusional thoughts, including the ultimate delusion that life is not worth living.¹⁰ This alteration suppresses the strongest, most fundamental urge of all, namely, the survival instinct.

We must overturn the catastrophic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that requires the showing of a dangerous act and the holding of a trial employing at least three lawyers for involuntary commitment to be authorized. Rather, involuntary treatment is justified by medical necessity as determined by two licensed professionals with no conflicts of interest. It can be outpatient.

The Supreme Court’s decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson in 1975 remedied an illusory wrong, addressing an act of blatant malpractice, not policy inequity.¹¹ The superintendent of the state facility in that case was not even a doctor. He kept O’Connor prisoner for more than a decade, perhaps to keep a bed filled. Over the past half-century, this one decision has resulted in 1 million preventable suicides¹² and half a million senseless murders by paranoid individuals, including many rampage shootings.¹³

More than two-thirds of homeless individuals suffer from an untreated mental condition.¹⁴ The vast majority of them will refuse all offers of treatment because they also have anosognosia, a brain-based disorder causing denial of illness.¹⁵ By referring to these individuals as “homeless,” we are also lowering real estate values for a square block around where they happen to be camped out. That cost has never been calculated, but it is another real consequence of this devastating Supreme Court decision.¹⁶

Detractors and mental health rights activists may argue that individual rights cannot be infringed. In that case, those same detractors and mental health rights activists must take responsibility for the thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic damage caused by their refusal to allow an effective solution to the suicide epidemic to be implemented. Enforced outpatient treatment by the U.S. Air Force dropped its suicide rate by 60%. As an unintended benefit, the murder rate dropped by 50%.¹⁷

Through the adoption of well-established, indisputably effective approaches, suicide and its horrible and painful costs can be ended. It is high time we did so.

Dr. Behar is a psychiatrist in Lower Merion, Pa. He graduated from Hahnemann Medical College, Philadelphia, in 1975, and has had postgraduate training at SUNY Stony Brook, University of Iowa, the National Institute of Mental Health, and Columbia University. His practice focuses on difficult, treatment-resistant cases.

References

1. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Suicide Prevention. 2020.

2. Luoma JB et al. Contact with mental health and primary care providers before suicide: A review of the evidence. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Jun 1. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.6.909.

3. World Health Organization. Suicide. 2021 Jun 17.

4. National Institute of Corrections. Correctional suicide prevention: Policies and procedures. 1995.

5. Hufford MR. Alcohol and suicidal behavior. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;21(5):797-811.

6. Stanley B and Brown GK. Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cogn Behav Pract. 2012 May;19(2):256-64.

7. Ibid.

8. Brown GK and Jager-Hyman S. Evidence-based psychotherapies for suicide prevention: Future directions. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Sep;47(3 Suppl 2):S186-94.

9. Isometsä ET. Psychological autopsy studies – A review. Eur Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;16(7):379-85.

10. Van Orden KA et al. The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychol Rev. 2010 Apr; 117(2):575-600.

11. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).

12. Calculated based on annual suicide statistics from the CDC and the time elapsed since the Supreme Court decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson.

13. Metzl JM and MacLeish KT. Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. Am J Public Health. 2015 Feb;105(2):240-9.

14. Fazel S et al. The prevalence of mental disorders among the homeless in western countries: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. PLoS Med. 2008 Dec 2;5(12):e225.

15. Amador XF and David AS. (eds.) Insight and psychosis: Awareness of illness in schizophrenia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Oxford Univ Press. 2004.

16. Calculated based on the potential impact of homelessness on property values and the relationship between untreated mental illness and homelessness.

17. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch. Surveillance snapshot: Manner and cause of death, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 1998-2015. Medical Surveillance Monthly Report. 2016 Apr;23(4):19.

The old man was restrained at the last moment from jumping off the hospital’s fifth floor atrium parapet. He was suffering from terminal cancer and had been racked with chronic, severe pain for months.

The consult recognized symptoms of depression arising from his continuous physical suffering, advising that a male aide be dispatched to sit with the man and that he be put on a regimen of 10 mg of methadone twice a day to alleviate the pain. The following day the man was calm; he no longer wanted to kill himself. He expressed a strong desire to go home, return to gardening, and to play with his grandchildren.

Dr. Behar

Most of the 47,000 suicides that occur in the United States every year are preventable.¹ Our national policy on this front has been nothing short of an abject failure. The government implemented a system with limited effect on completed suicides – a telephone hotline. This hotline is not called by the most common suicide victims: male, old, and quiet.²

The consequences of this national policy disaster have been profound, resulting in the biggest loss of productive years of life for any fatal condition.³ The grief experienced by the families of those who commit suicide is far greater than normal bereavement: The cause of death of their loved ones was not an unfortunate accident or a disease, it was an intentional act, and families take it personally.

One of the greatest achievements of psychiatry during the 20th century was the lowering of suicide rates in prisons by 70% with no treatment, no additional staffing, and no additional expenditures of funds. Today if inmates threaten suicide, they are immediately placed under eyesight supervision by guards. The federal pamphlet that describes this protocol was published in 1995 and is freely available online.⁴

Half of all suicide attempts are made by individuals who are legally drunk.⁵ Watch them for 6 hours and then ask them if they want to kill themselves and the response will almost invariably be “Of course not,” with the risk of further attempts dissipating in step with their blood alcohol level. The best resources to provide this kind of intervention are responsible adult family members, at no cost to the government. Indeed, in many cases family supervision is superior to that provided by a locked psychiatric ward with three staff members chasing after 20 agitated people all night long. The one-on-one attention that a family member can provide is free as well as far more personal and insightful, and more sincerely caring.

Guarantees in the field of medicine are rare. But, one such guarantee is that after their mood has improved, 100% of people will be thankful that they did not hurt themselves.⁶ This means that successful treatment will prevent 100% of all suicides.⁷ Not all treatments are successful, but 95% can be.⁸ At autopsy, few successful suicide victims have psychiatric medications in their system.⁹ The urge to kill oneself might best be characterized as a temporary chemical alteration of the brain causing delusional thoughts, including the ultimate delusion that life is not worth living.¹⁰ This alteration suppresses the strongest, most fundamental urge of all, namely, the survival instinct.

We must overturn the catastrophic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that requires the showing of a dangerous act and the holding of a trial employing at least three lawyers for involuntary commitment to be authorized. Rather, involuntary treatment is justified by medical necessity as determined by two licensed professionals with no conflicts of interest. It can be outpatient.

The Supreme Court’s decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson in 1975 remedied an illusory wrong, addressing an act of blatant malpractice, not policy inequity.¹¹ The superintendent of the state facility in that case was not even a doctor. He kept O’Connor prisoner for more than a decade, perhaps to keep a bed filled. Over the past half-century, this one decision has resulted in 1 million preventable suicides¹² and half a million senseless murders by paranoid individuals, including many rampage shootings.¹³

More than two-thirds of homeless individuals suffer from an untreated mental condition.¹⁴ The vast majority of them will refuse all offers of treatment because they also have anosognosia, a brain-based disorder causing denial of illness.¹⁵ By referring to these individuals as “homeless,” we are also lowering real estate values for a square block around where they happen to be camped out. That cost has never been calculated, but it is another real consequence of this devastating Supreme Court decision.¹⁶

Detractors and mental health rights activists may argue that individual rights cannot be infringed. In that case, those same detractors and mental health rights activists must take responsibility for the thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic damage caused by their refusal to allow an effective solution to the suicide epidemic to be implemented. Enforced outpatient treatment by the U.S. Air Force dropped its suicide rate by 60%. As an unintended benefit, the murder rate dropped by 50%.¹⁷

Through the adoption of well-established, indisputably effective approaches, suicide and its horrible and painful costs can be ended. It is high time we did so.

Dr. Behar is a psychiatrist in Lower Merion, Pa. He graduated from Hahnemann Medical College, Philadelphia, in 1975, and has had postgraduate training at SUNY Stony Brook, University of Iowa, the National Institute of Mental Health, and Columbia University. His practice focuses on difficult, treatment-resistant cases.

References

1. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Suicide Prevention. 2020.

2. Luoma JB et al. Contact with mental health and primary care providers before suicide: A review of the evidence. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Jun 1. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.6.909.

3. World Health Organization. Suicide. 2021 Jun 17.

4. National Institute of Corrections. Correctional suicide prevention: Policies and procedures. 1995.

5. Hufford MR. Alcohol and suicidal behavior. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;21(5):797-811.

6. Stanley B and Brown GK. Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cogn Behav Pract. 2012 May;19(2):256-64.

7. Ibid.

8. Brown GK and Jager-Hyman S. Evidence-based psychotherapies for suicide prevention: Future directions. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Sep;47(3 Suppl 2):S186-94.

9. Isometsä ET. Psychological autopsy studies – A review. Eur Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;16(7):379-85.

10. Van Orden KA et al. The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychol Rev. 2010 Apr; 117(2):575-600.

11. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).

12. Calculated based on annual suicide statistics from the CDC and the time elapsed since the Supreme Court decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson.

13. Metzl JM and MacLeish KT. Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. Am J Public Health. 2015 Feb;105(2):240-9.

14. Fazel S et al. The prevalence of mental disorders among the homeless in western countries: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. PLoS Med. 2008 Dec 2;5(12):e225.

15. Amador XF and David AS. (eds.) Insight and psychosis: Awareness of illness in schizophrenia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Oxford Univ Press. 2004.

16. Calculated based on the potential impact of homelessness on property values and the relationship between untreated mental illness and homelessness.

17. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch. Surveillance snapshot: Manner and cause of death, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 1998-2015. Medical Surveillance Monthly Report. 2016 Apr;23(4):19.

The old man was restrained at the last moment from jumping off the hospital’s fifth floor atrium parapet. He was suffering from terminal cancer and had been racked with chronic, severe pain for months.

The consult recognized symptoms of depression arising from his continuous physical suffering, advising that a male aide be dispatched to sit with the man and that he be put on a regimen of 10 mg of methadone twice a day to alleviate the pain. The following day the man was calm; he no longer wanted to kill himself. He expressed a strong desire to go home, return to gardening, and to play with his grandchildren.

Dr. Behar

Most of the 47,000 suicides that occur in the United States every year are preventable.¹ Our national policy on this front has been nothing short of an abject failure. The government implemented a system with limited effect on completed suicides – a telephone hotline. This hotline is not called by the most common suicide victims: male, old, and quiet.²

The consequences of this national policy disaster have been profound, resulting in the biggest loss of productive years of life for any fatal condition.³ The grief experienced by the families of those who commit suicide is far greater than normal bereavement: The cause of death of their loved ones was not an unfortunate accident or a disease, it was an intentional act, and families take it personally.

One of the greatest achievements of psychiatry during the 20th century was the lowering of suicide rates in prisons by 70% with no treatment, no additional staffing, and no additional expenditures of funds. Today if inmates threaten suicide, they are immediately placed under eyesight supervision by guards. The federal pamphlet that describes this protocol was published in 1995 and is freely available online.⁴

Half of all suicide attempts are made by individuals who are legally drunk.⁵ Watch them for 6 hours and then ask them if they want to kill themselves and the response will almost invariably be “Of course not,” with the risk of further attempts dissipating in step with their blood alcohol level. The best resources to provide this kind of intervention are responsible adult family members, at no cost to the government. Indeed, in many cases family supervision is superior to that provided by a locked psychiatric ward with three staff members chasing after 20 agitated people all night long. The one-on-one attention that a family member can provide is free as well as far more personal and insightful, and more sincerely caring.

Guarantees in the field of medicine are rare. But, one such guarantee is that after their mood has improved, 100% of people will be thankful that they did not hurt themselves.⁶ This means that successful treatment will prevent 100% of all suicides.⁷ Not all treatments are successful, but 95% can be.⁸ At autopsy, few successful suicide victims have psychiatric medications in their system.⁹ The urge to kill oneself might best be characterized as a temporary chemical alteration of the brain causing delusional thoughts, including the ultimate delusion that life is not worth living.¹⁰ This alteration suppresses the strongest, most fundamental urge of all, namely, the survival instinct.

We must overturn the catastrophic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that requires the showing of a dangerous act and the holding of a trial employing at least three lawyers for involuntary commitment to be authorized. Rather, involuntary treatment is justified by medical necessity as determined by two licensed professionals with no conflicts of interest. It can be outpatient.

The Supreme Court’s decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson in 1975 remedied an illusory wrong, addressing an act of blatant malpractice, not policy inequity.¹¹ The superintendent of the state facility in that case was not even a doctor. He kept O’Connor prisoner for more than a decade, perhaps to keep a bed filled. Over the past half-century, this one decision has resulted in 1 million preventable suicides¹² and half a million senseless murders by paranoid individuals, including many rampage shootings.¹³

More than two-thirds of homeless individuals suffer from an untreated mental condition.¹⁴ The vast majority of them will refuse all offers of treatment because they also have anosognosia, a brain-based disorder causing denial of illness.¹⁵ By referring to these individuals as “homeless,” we are also lowering real estate values for a square block around where they happen to be camped out. That cost has never been calculated, but it is another real consequence of this devastating Supreme Court decision.¹⁶

Detractors and mental health rights activists may argue that individual rights cannot be infringed. In that case, those same detractors and mental health rights activists must take responsibility for the thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic damage caused by their refusal to allow an effective solution to the suicide epidemic to be implemented. Enforced outpatient treatment by the U.S. Air Force dropped its suicide rate by 60%. As an unintended benefit, the murder rate dropped by 50%.¹⁷

Through the adoption of well-established, indisputably effective approaches, suicide and its horrible and painful costs can be ended. It is high time we did so.

Dr. Behar is a psychiatrist in Lower Merion, Pa. He graduated from Hahnemann Medical College, Philadelphia, in 1975, and has had postgraduate training at SUNY Stony Brook, University of Iowa, the National Institute of Mental Health, and Columbia University. His practice focuses on difficult, treatment-resistant cases.

References

1. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Suicide Prevention. 2020.

2. Luoma JB et al. Contact with mental health and primary care providers before suicide: A review of the evidence. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Jun 1. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.6.909.

3. World Health Organization. Suicide. 2021 Jun 17.

4. National Institute of Corrections. Correctional suicide prevention: Policies and procedures. 1995.

5. Hufford MR. Alcohol and suicidal behavior. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;21(5):797-811.

6. Stanley B and Brown GK. Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cogn Behav Pract. 2012 May;19(2):256-64.

7. Ibid.

8. Brown GK and Jager-Hyman S. Evidence-based psychotherapies for suicide prevention: Future directions. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Sep;47(3 Suppl 2):S186-94.

9. Isometsä ET. Psychological autopsy studies – A review. Eur Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;16(7):379-85.

10. Van Orden KA et al. The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychol Rev. 2010 Apr; 117(2):575-600.

11. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).

12. Calculated based on annual suicide statistics from the CDC and the time elapsed since the Supreme Court decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson.

13. Metzl JM and MacLeish KT. Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. Am J Public Health. 2015 Feb;105(2):240-9.

14. Fazel S et al. The prevalence of mental disorders among the homeless in western countries: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. PLoS Med. 2008 Dec 2;5(12):e225.

15. Amador XF and David AS. (eds.) Insight and psychosis: Awareness of illness in schizophrenia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Oxford Univ Press. 2004.

16. Calculated based on the potential impact of homelessness on property values and the relationship between untreated mental illness and homelessness.

17. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch. Surveillance snapshot: Manner and cause of death, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 1998-2015. Medical Surveillance Monthly Report. 2016 Apr;23(4):19.

Using a microsimulation algorithm that accounts for the effect on mortality, a team from Marseille, France, has shown that interventions targeting the three main vascular risk factors for dementia – hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity – could significantly reduce the burden of dementia by 2040.

Among the three modifiable risk factors, the prevention of hypertension would be the most efficient, with by far the biggest impact on dementia.

Although these modeling results could appear too optimistic, since total disappearance of the risk factors was assumed, the authors say the results do show that targeted interventions for these factors could be effective in reducing the future burden of dementia.
 

Increasing prevalence

According to the World Alzheimer Report 2018, 50 million people around the world were living with dementia; a population roughly around the size of South Korea or Spain. That community is likely to rise to about 152 million people by 2050, which is similar to the size of Russia or Bangladesh, the result of an aging population.

Among modifiable risk factors, many studies support a deleterious effect of hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity on the risk of dementia. However, since the distribution of these risk factors could have a direct impact on mortality, reducing it should increase life expectancy and the number of cases of dementia.

The team, headed by Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, PhD, research director at the University of Bordeaux (France), has developed a microsimulation model capable of predicting the burden of dementia while accounting for the impact on mortality. The team used this approach to assess the impact of interventions targeting these three main risk factors on the burden of dementia in France by 2040.
 

Removing risk factors

The researchers estimated the incidence of dementia for men and women using data from the 2020 PAQUID cohort, and these data were combined with the projections forecast by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies to account for mortality with and without dementia.

Without intervention, the prevalence rate of dementia in 2040 would be 9.6% among men and 14% among women older than 65 years.

These figures would decrease to 6.4% (−33%) and 10.4% (−26%), respectively, under the intervention scenario whereby the three modifiable vascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity) would be removed simultaneously beginning in 2020. The prevalence rates are significantly reduced for men and women from age 75 years. In this scenario, life expectancy without dementia would increase by 3.4 years in men and 2.6 years in women, the result of men being more exposed to these three risk factors.

Other scenarios have estimated dementia prevalence with the disappearance of just one of these risk factors. For example, the disappearance of hypertension alone from 2020 could decrease dementia prevalence by 21% in men and 16% in women (because this risk factor is less common in women than in men) by 2040. This reduction would be associated with a decrease in the lifelong probability of dementia among men and women and a gain in life expectancy without dementia of 2 years in men and 1.4 years in women.

Among the three factors, hypertension has the largest impact on dementia burden in the French population, since this is, by far, the most prevalent (69% in men and 49% in women), while intervention targeting only diabetes or physical inactivity would lead to a reduction in dementia prevalence of only 4%-7%.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from Univadis France. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Using a microsimulation algorithm that accounts for the effect on mortality, a team from Marseille, France, has shown that interventions targeting the three main vascular risk factors for dementia – hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity – could significantly reduce the burden of dementia by 2040.

Among the three modifiable risk factors, the prevention of hypertension would be the most efficient, with by far the biggest impact on dementia.

Although these modeling results could appear too optimistic, since total disappearance of the risk factors was assumed, the authors say the results do show that targeted interventions for these factors could be effective in reducing the future burden of dementia.
 

Increasing prevalence

According to the World Alzheimer Report 2018, 50 million people around the world were living with dementia; a population roughly around the size of South Korea or Spain. That community is likely to rise to about 152 million people by 2050, which is similar to the size of Russia or Bangladesh, the result of an aging population.

Among modifiable risk factors, many studies support a deleterious effect of hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity on the risk of dementia. However, since the distribution of these risk factors could have a direct impact on mortality, reducing it should increase life expectancy and the number of cases of dementia.

The team, headed by Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, PhD, research director at the University of Bordeaux (France), has developed a microsimulation model capable of predicting the burden of dementia while accounting for the impact on mortality. The team used this approach to assess the impact of interventions targeting these three main risk factors on the burden of dementia in France by 2040.
 

Removing risk factors

The researchers estimated the incidence of dementia for men and women using data from the 2020 PAQUID cohort, and these data were combined with the projections forecast by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies to account for mortality with and without dementia.

Without intervention, the prevalence rate of dementia in 2040 would be 9.6% among men and 14% among women older than 65 years.

These figures would decrease to 6.4% (−33%) and 10.4% (−26%), respectively, under the intervention scenario whereby the three modifiable vascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity) would be removed simultaneously beginning in 2020. The prevalence rates are significantly reduced for men and women from age 75 years. In this scenario, life expectancy without dementia would increase by 3.4 years in men and 2.6 years in women, the result of men being more exposed to these three risk factors.

Other scenarios have estimated dementia prevalence with the disappearance of just one of these risk factors. For example, the disappearance of hypertension alone from 2020 could decrease dementia prevalence by 21% in men and 16% in women (because this risk factor is less common in women than in men) by 2040. This reduction would be associated with a decrease in the lifelong probability of dementia among men and women and a gain in life expectancy without dementia of 2 years in men and 1.4 years in women.

Among the three factors, hypertension has the largest impact on dementia burden in the French population, since this is, by far, the most prevalent (69% in men and 49% in women), while intervention targeting only diabetes or physical inactivity would lead to a reduction in dementia prevalence of only 4%-7%.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from Univadis France. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Using a microsimulation algorithm that accounts for the effect on mortality, a team from Marseille, France, has shown that interventions targeting the three main vascular risk factors for dementia – hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity – could significantly reduce the burden of dementia by 2040.

Among the three modifiable risk factors, the prevention of hypertension would be the most efficient, with by far the biggest impact on dementia.

Although these modeling results could appear too optimistic, since total disappearance of the risk factors was assumed, the authors say the results do show that targeted interventions for these factors could be effective in reducing the future burden of dementia.
 

Increasing prevalence

According to the World Alzheimer Report 2018, 50 million people around the world were living with dementia; a population roughly around the size of South Korea or Spain. That community is likely to rise to about 152 million people by 2050, which is similar to the size of Russia or Bangladesh, the result of an aging population.

Among modifiable risk factors, many studies support a deleterious effect of hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity on the risk of dementia. However, since the distribution of these risk factors could have a direct impact on mortality, reducing it should increase life expectancy and the number of cases of dementia.

The team, headed by Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, PhD, research director at the University of Bordeaux (France), has developed a microsimulation model capable of predicting the burden of dementia while accounting for the impact on mortality. The team used this approach to assess the impact of interventions targeting these three main risk factors on the burden of dementia in France by 2040.
 

Removing risk factors

The researchers estimated the incidence of dementia for men and women using data from the 2020 PAQUID cohort, and these data were combined with the projections forecast by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies to account for mortality with and without dementia.

Without intervention, the prevalence rate of dementia in 2040 would be 9.6% among men and 14% among women older than 65 years.

These figures would decrease to 6.4% (−33%) and 10.4% (−26%), respectively, under the intervention scenario whereby the three modifiable vascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and physical inactivity) would be removed simultaneously beginning in 2020. The prevalence rates are significantly reduced for men and women from age 75 years. In this scenario, life expectancy without dementia would increase by 3.4 years in men and 2.6 years in women, the result of men being more exposed to these three risk factors.

Other scenarios have estimated dementia prevalence with the disappearance of just one of these risk factors. For example, the disappearance of hypertension alone from 2020 could decrease dementia prevalence by 21% in men and 16% in women (because this risk factor is less common in women than in men) by 2040. This reduction would be associated with a decrease in the lifelong probability of dementia among men and women and a gain in life expectancy without dementia of 2 years in men and 1.4 years in women.

Among the three factors, hypertension has the largest impact on dementia burden in the French population, since this is, by far, the most prevalent (69% in men and 49% in women), while intervention targeting only diabetes or physical inactivity would lead to a reduction in dementia prevalence of only 4%-7%.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from Univadis France. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicenter study published in JAMA Pediatrics indicates that an elevated proportion of children and adolescents around the world, particularly girls or those with high body mass index (BMI), experience disordered eating. The high figures are concerning from a public health perspective and highlight the need to implement strategies for preventing eating disorders.
 

These disorders include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and eating disorder–not otherwise specified. The prevalence of these disorders in young people has markedly increased globally over the past 50 years. Eating disorders are among the most life-threatening mental disorders; they were responsible for 318 deaths worldwide in 2019.

Because some individuals with eating disorders conceal core symptoms and avoid or delay seeking specialist care because of feelings of embarrassment, stigma, or ambivalence toward treatment, most cases of eating disorders remain undetected and untreated.

Brazilian researchers conducted studies to assess risky behaviors and predisposing factors among young people. The researchers observed that the probability of experiencing eating disorders was higher among young people who had an intense fear of gaining weight, who experienced thin-ideal internalization, who were excessively concerned about food, who experienced compulsive eating episodes, or who used laxatives. As previously reported, most participants in these studies had never sought professional help.

A study conducted in 2020 concluded that the media greatly influences the construction of one’s body image and the creation of aesthetic standards, particularly for adolescents. Adolescents then change their eating patterns and become more vulnerable to mental disorders related to eating.

A group of researchers from several countries, including Brazilians connected to the State University of Londrina, conducted the Global Proportion of Disordered Eating in Children and Adolescents – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The study was coordinated by José Francisco López-Gil, PhD, of the University of Castilla–La Mancha (Spain). The investigators determined the rate of disordered eating among children and adolescents using the SCOFF (Sick, Control, One, Fat, Food) questionnaire, which is the most widely used screening measure for eating disorders.
 

Methods and results

Four databases were systematically searched (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library); date limits were from January 1999 to November 2022. Studies were required to meet the following criteria: participants – studies of community samples of children and adolescents aged 6-18 years – and outcome – disordered eating assessed by the SCOFF questionnaire. The exclusion criteria were studies conducted with young people who had been diagnosed with physical or mental disorders; studies that were published before 1999, because the SCOFF questionnaire was designed in that year; studies in which data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the possibility of selection bias; studies that employed data from the same surveys/studies, to avoid duplication; and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and qualitative and case studies.

In all, 32 studies, which involved a total of 63,181 participants from 16 countries, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The overall proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating was 22.36% (95% confidence interval, 18.84%-26.09%; P < .001; n = 63,181). According to the researchers, girls were significantly more likely to report disordered eating (30.03%; 95% CI, 25.61%-34.65%; n = 27,548) than boys (16.98%; 95% CI, 13.46%-20.81%; n = 26,170; P < .001). It was also observed that disordered eating became more elevated with increasing age (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0-0.06; P = .049) and BMI (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P < .001).
 

Translation of outcomes

According to the authors, this was the first meta-analysis that comprehensively examined the overall proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating in terms of gender, mean age, and BMI. They identified 14,856 (22.36%) children and adolescents with disordered eating in the population analyzed (n = 63,181). A relevant consideration made by the researchers is that, in general, disordered eating and eating disorders are not similar. “Not all children and adolescents who reported disordered eating behaviors (for example, selective eating) will necessarily be diagnosed with an eating disorder.” However, disordered eating in childhood or adolescence may predict outcomes associated with eating disorders in early adulthood. “For this reason, this high proportion found is worrisome and calls for urgent action to try to address this situation.”

The study also found that the proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating was higher among girls than boys. The reasons for the difference in the prevalence with respect to the sex of the participants are not well understood. Boys are presumed to underreport the problem because of the societal perception that these disorders mostly affect girls and because disordered eating has usually been thought by the general population to be exclusive to girls and women. In addition, it has been noted that the current diagnostic criteria for eating disorders fail to detect disordered eating behaviors more commonly observed in boys than girls, such as intensely engaging in muscle mass gain and weight gain with the goal of improving body image satisfaction. On the other hand, the proportion of young people with disordered eating increased with increasing age and BMI. This finding is in line with the scientific literature worldwide.

The study has certain limitations. First, only studies that analyzed disordered eating using the SCOFF questionnaire were included. Second, because of the cross-sectional nature of most of the included studies, a causal relationship cannot be established. Third, owing to the inclusion of binge eating disorder and other eating disorders specified in the DSM-5, there is not enough evidence to support the use of SCOFF in primary care and community-based settings for screening for the range of eating disorders. Fourth, the meta-analysis included studies in which self-report questionnaires were used to assess disordered eating, and consequently, social desirability and recall bias could have influenced the findings.
 

Quick measures required

Identifying the magnitude of disordered eating and its distribution in at-risk populations is crucial for planning and executing actions aimed at preventing, detecting, and treating them. Eating disorders are a global public health problem that health care professionals, families, and other community members involved in caring for children and adolescents must not ignore, the researchers said. In addition to diagnosed eating disorders, parents, guardians, and health care professionals should be aware of symptoms of disordered eating, which include behaviors such as weight-loss dieting, binge eating, self-induced vomiting, excessive exercise, and the use of laxatives or diuretics without medical prescription.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicenter study published in JAMA Pediatrics indicates that an elevated proportion of children and adolescents around the world, particularly girls or those with high body mass index (BMI), experience disordered eating. The high figures are concerning from a public health perspective and highlight the need to implement strategies for preventing eating disorders.
 

These disorders include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and eating disorder–not otherwise specified. The prevalence of these disorders in young people has markedly increased globally over the past 50 years. Eating disorders are among the most life-threatening mental disorders; they were responsible for 318 deaths worldwide in 2019.

Because some individuals with eating disorders conceal core symptoms and avoid or delay seeking specialist care because of feelings of embarrassment, stigma, or ambivalence toward treatment, most cases of eating disorders remain undetected and untreated.

Brazilian researchers conducted studies to assess risky behaviors and predisposing factors among young people. The researchers observed that the probability of experiencing eating disorders was higher among young people who had an intense fear of gaining weight, who experienced thin-ideal internalization, who were excessively concerned about food, who experienced compulsive eating episodes, or who used laxatives. As previously reported, most participants in these studies had never sought professional help.

A study conducted in 2020 concluded that the media greatly influences the construction of one’s body image and the creation of aesthetic standards, particularly for adolescents. Adolescents then change their eating patterns and become more vulnerable to mental disorders related to eating.

A group of researchers from several countries, including Brazilians connected to the State University of Londrina, conducted the Global Proportion of Disordered Eating in Children and Adolescents – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The study was coordinated by José Francisco López-Gil, PhD, of the University of Castilla–La Mancha (Spain). The investigators determined the rate of disordered eating among children and adolescents using the SCOFF (Sick, Control, One, Fat, Food) questionnaire, which is the most widely used screening measure for eating disorders.
 

Methods and results

Four databases were systematically searched (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library); date limits were from January 1999 to November 2022. Studies were required to meet the following criteria: participants – studies of community samples of children and adolescents aged 6-18 years – and outcome – disordered eating assessed by the SCOFF questionnaire. The exclusion criteria were studies conducted with young people who had been diagnosed with physical or mental disorders; studies that were published before 1999, because the SCOFF questionnaire was designed in that year; studies in which data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the possibility of selection bias; studies that employed data from the same surveys/studies, to avoid duplication; and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and qualitative and case studies.

In all, 32 studies, which involved a total of 63,181 participants from 16 countries, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The overall proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating was 22.36% (95% confidence interval, 18.84%-26.09%; P < .001; n = 63,181). According to the researchers, girls were significantly more likely to report disordered eating (30.03%; 95% CI, 25.61%-34.65%; n = 27,548) than boys (16.98%; 95% CI, 13.46%-20.81%; n = 26,170; P < .001). It was also observed that disordered eating became more elevated with increasing age (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0-0.06; P = .049) and BMI (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P < .001).
 

Translation of outcomes

According to the authors, this was the first meta-analysis that comprehensively examined the overall proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating in terms of gender, mean age, and BMI. They identified 14,856 (22.36%) children and adolescents with disordered eating in the population analyzed (n = 63,181). A relevant consideration made by the researchers is that, in general, disordered eating and eating disorders are not similar. “Not all children and adolescents who reported disordered eating behaviors (for example, selective eating) will necessarily be diagnosed with an eating disorder.” However, disordered eating in childhood or adolescence may predict outcomes associated with eating disorders in early adulthood. “For this reason, this high proportion found is worrisome and calls for urgent action to try to address this situation.”

The study also found that the proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating was higher among girls than boys. The reasons for the difference in the prevalence with respect to the sex of the participants are not well understood. Boys are presumed to underreport the problem because of the societal perception that these disorders mostly affect girls and because disordered eating has usually been thought by the general population to be exclusive to girls and women. In addition, it has been noted that the current diagnostic criteria for eating disorders fail to detect disordered eating behaviors more commonly observed in boys than girls, such as intensely engaging in muscle mass gain and weight gain with the goal of improving body image satisfaction. On the other hand, the proportion of young people with disordered eating increased with increasing age and BMI. This finding is in line with the scientific literature worldwide.

The study has certain limitations. First, only studies that analyzed disordered eating using the SCOFF questionnaire were included. Second, because of the cross-sectional nature of most of the included studies, a causal relationship cannot be established. Third, owing to the inclusion of binge eating disorder and other eating disorders specified in the DSM-5, there is not enough evidence to support the use of SCOFF in primary care and community-based settings for screening for the range of eating disorders. Fourth, the meta-analysis included studies in which self-report questionnaires were used to assess disordered eating, and consequently, social desirability and recall bias could have influenced the findings.
 

Quick measures required

Identifying the magnitude of disordered eating and its distribution in at-risk populations is crucial for planning and executing actions aimed at preventing, detecting, and treating them. Eating disorders are a global public health problem that health care professionals, families, and other community members involved in caring for children and adolescents must not ignore, the researchers said. In addition to diagnosed eating disorders, parents, guardians, and health care professionals should be aware of symptoms of disordered eating, which include behaviors such as weight-loss dieting, binge eating, self-induced vomiting, excessive exercise, and the use of laxatives or diuretics without medical prescription.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicenter study published in JAMA Pediatrics indicates that an elevated proportion of children and adolescents around the world, particularly girls or those with high body mass index (BMI), experience disordered eating. The high figures are concerning from a public health perspective and highlight the need to implement strategies for preventing eating disorders.
 

These disorders include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and eating disorder–not otherwise specified. The prevalence of these disorders in young people has markedly increased globally over the past 50 years. Eating disorders are among the most life-threatening mental disorders; they were responsible for 318 deaths worldwide in 2019.

Because some individuals with eating disorders conceal core symptoms and avoid or delay seeking specialist care because of feelings of embarrassment, stigma, or ambivalence toward treatment, most cases of eating disorders remain undetected and untreated.

Brazilian researchers conducted studies to assess risky behaviors and predisposing factors among young people. The researchers observed that the probability of experiencing eating disorders was higher among young people who had an intense fear of gaining weight, who experienced thin-ideal internalization, who were excessively concerned about food, who experienced compulsive eating episodes, or who used laxatives. As previously reported, most participants in these studies had never sought professional help.

A study conducted in 2020 concluded that the media greatly influences the construction of one’s body image and the creation of aesthetic standards, particularly for adolescents. Adolescents then change their eating patterns and become more vulnerable to mental disorders related to eating.

A group of researchers from several countries, including Brazilians connected to the State University of Londrina, conducted the Global Proportion of Disordered Eating in Children and Adolescents – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The study was coordinated by José Francisco López-Gil, PhD, of the University of Castilla–La Mancha (Spain). The investigators determined the rate of disordered eating among children and adolescents using the SCOFF (Sick, Control, One, Fat, Food) questionnaire, which is the most widely used screening measure for eating disorders.
 

Methods and results

Four databases were systematically searched (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library); date limits were from January 1999 to November 2022. Studies were required to meet the following criteria: participants – studies of community samples of children and adolescents aged 6-18 years – and outcome – disordered eating assessed by the SCOFF questionnaire. The exclusion criteria were studies conducted with young people who had been diagnosed with physical or mental disorders; studies that were published before 1999, because the SCOFF questionnaire was designed in that year; studies in which data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the possibility of selection bias; studies that employed data from the same surveys/studies, to avoid duplication; and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and qualitative and case studies.

In all, 32 studies, which involved a total of 63,181 participants from 16 countries, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The overall proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating was 22.36% (95% confidence interval, 18.84%-26.09%; P < .001; n = 63,181). According to the researchers, girls were significantly more likely to report disordered eating (30.03%; 95% CI, 25.61%-34.65%; n = 27,548) than boys (16.98%; 95% CI, 13.46%-20.81%; n = 26,170; P < .001). It was also observed that disordered eating became more elevated with increasing age (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0-0.06; P = .049) and BMI (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P < .001).
 

Translation of outcomes

According to the authors, this was the first meta-analysis that comprehensively examined the overall proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating in terms of gender, mean age, and BMI. They identified 14,856 (22.36%) children and adolescents with disordered eating in the population analyzed (n = 63,181). A relevant consideration made by the researchers is that, in general, disordered eating and eating disorders are not similar. “Not all children and adolescents who reported disordered eating behaviors (for example, selective eating) will necessarily be diagnosed with an eating disorder.” However, disordered eating in childhood or adolescence may predict outcomes associated with eating disorders in early adulthood. “For this reason, this high proportion found is worrisome and calls for urgent action to try to address this situation.”

The study also found that the proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating was higher among girls than boys. The reasons for the difference in the prevalence with respect to the sex of the participants are not well understood. Boys are presumed to underreport the problem because of the societal perception that these disorders mostly affect girls and because disordered eating has usually been thought by the general population to be exclusive to girls and women. In addition, it has been noted that the current diagnostic criteria for eating disorders fail to detect disordered eating behaviors more commonly observed in boys than girls, such as intensely engaging in muscle mass gain and weight gain with the goal of improving body image satisfaction. On the other hand, the proportion of young people with disordered eating increased with increasing age and BMI. This finding is in line with the scientific literature worldwide.

The study has certain limitations. First, only studies that analyzed disordered eating using the SCOFF questionnaire were included. Second, because of the cross-sectional nature of most of the included studies, a causal relationship cannot be established. Third, owing to the inclusion of binge eating disorder and other eating disorders specified in the DSM-5, there is not enough evidence to support the use of SCOFF in primary care and community-based settings for screening for the range of eating disorders. Fourth, the meta-analysis included studies in which self-report questionnaires were used to assess disordered eating, and consequently, social desirability and recall bias could have influenced the findings.
 

Quick measures required

Identifying the magnitude of disordered eating and its distribution in at-risk populations is crucial for planning and executing actions aimed at preventing, detecting, and treating them. Eating disorders are a global public health problem that health care professionals, families, and other community members involved in caring for children and adolescents must not ignore, the researchers said. In addition to diagnosed eating disorders, parents, guardians, and health care professionals should be aware of symptoms of disordered eating, which include behaviors such as weight-loss dieting, binge eating, self-induced vomiting, excessive exercise, and the use of laxatives or diuretics without medical prescription.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Recreational marijuana use by teenagers isn’t as harmless as many people seem to think, even as it becomes increasingly legal in this country, authors of a new study say.

Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.

The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police. 

Stockphoto4u/iStockphoto

“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.

Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”

The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.

“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”

Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.

NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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