Depression

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

Despite decreases in overall opioid overdose deaths in 2018, deaths involving synthetic opioids, cocaine, and other psychostimulants increased sharply in the United States, and alcohol and suicide deaths also rose, new data show.

A report released May 21 by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Well Being Trust shows that 151,964 Americans died from alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Experts warn that these “deaths of despair” may well increase in the wake of COVID-19.

A study released earlier in May estimated that an additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the pandemic (Petterson S et al. “Projected Deaths of Despair From COVID-19,” Well Being Trust. May 8, 2020. WellBeingTrust.org).

“These data are a clarion call to action,” TFAH President and CEO John Auerbach said in a news release.

“We know what works to address deaths of despair but progress has been uneven and death rates continue to climb, with communities of color experiencing higher rates of increases in drug-induced and alcohol deaths,” he said.

“And there’s another immediate concern: The COVID-19 crisis has increased the health burdens and economic pressures on many communities of color,” said Mr. Auerbach.

According to the report, the 2018 national rate for alcohol, drug, and suicide deaths combined was only slightly lower than that reported in 2017 (46.4 vs 46.6 per 100,000).

Among the key findings in the report:

• 37,329 Americans died from alcohol-induced causes in 2018; the rate was up 4% over 2017.
• Alcohol-induced deaths were highest among American Indians (30.0 per 100,000) and adults aged 55 to 74 (27.6 per 100,000). For all population groups, rates of alcohol-related deaths were higher in 2018 than in 2017 except for people aged 17 years and younger, for whom the rate held steady.
• Despite a 4% decline in all drug-induced deaths and a 2% drop in all opioid-related deaths, 2018 saw sharp increases in deaths involving synthetic opioids (up 10%), cocaine (up 5%), and other psychostimulants, such as methamphetamine, ecstasy, amphetamine, and prescription stimulants (up 22%).
• Suicide claimed the lives of 48,344 Americans in 2018. The suicide rate in 2018 was 2% higher than in 2017 and 25% higher than in 2008.
• Suicide rates increased across all demographics except for adults aged 18-54 years, among whom the rate remained stable. Suicide death rates were highest in males (23.4 per 100,000), rural residents (19.7 per 100,000), whites (16.8 per 100,000), and American Indian/Alaska Natives (14.1 per 100,000).
• Between 2017 and 2018, 27 states had higher rates (above 0.04%) of alcohol, drug, and suicide deaths; 23 states and the District of Columbia had lower rates of deaths from those causes.
• States with the highest alcohol, drug, and suicide death rates in 2018 were West Virginia (84.9 per 100,000), New Mexico (82.8 per 100,000), New Hampshire (68.2 per 100,000), and Alaska (67.8 per 100,000).
• States with the lowest rates in 2018 were Texas (31.7 per 100,000), Mississippi (31.7 per 100,000), and Hawaii (34.6 per 100,000).

“Quite simply, too many Americans are dying from preventable causes. The profound racial health disparities seen in these data show that many ethnic minority groups are being left behind in our response efforts,” Benjamin F. Miller, PsyD, Well Being Trust chief strategy officer, said in the release.

“The nation needs a comprehensive framework for excellence in mental health and well-being, one that intentionally provides solutions for American Indians, blacks, Asians and Latinos. With all the other COVID-19 related investments, it’s time for the federal government to fully invest in mental health now and for all states to take action,” said Dr. Miller.

Policy recommendations outlined in the report include investing in prevention; reducing risk factors and promoting resilience in children, families, and communities; engaging all sectors of society to address mental health and substance use disorders; limiting access to lethal means of suicide; and promoting safe storage of medications and firearms.
 

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

Despite decreases in overall opioid overdose deaths in 2018, deaths involving synthetic opioids, cocaine, and other psychostimulants increased sharply in the United States, and alcohol and suicide deaths also rose, new data show.

A report released May 21 by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Well Being Trust shows that 151,964 Americans died from alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Experts warn that these “deaths of despair” may well increase in the wake of COVID-19.

A study released earlier in May estimated that an additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the pandemic (Petterson S et al. “Projected Deaths of Despair From COVID-19,” Well Being Trust. May 8, 2020. WellBeingTrust.org).

“These data are a clarion call to action,” TFAH President and CEO John Auerbach said in a news release.

“We know what works to address deaths of despair but progress has been uneven and death rates continue to climb, with communities of color experiencing higher rates of increases in drug-induced and alcohol deaths,” he said.

“And there’s another immediate concern: The COVID-19 crisis has increased the health burdens and economic pressures on many communities of color,” said Mr. Auerbach.

According to the report, the 2018 national rate for alcohol, drug, and suicide deaths combined was only slightly lower than that reported in 2017 (46.4 vs 46.6 per 100,000).

Among the key findings in the report:

• 37,329 Americans died from alcohol-induced causes in 2018; the rate was up 4% over 2017.
• Alcohol-induced deaths were highest among American Indians (30.0 per 100,000) and adults aged 55 to 74 (27.6 per 100,000). For all population groups, rates of alcohol-related deaths were higher in 2018 than in 2017 except for people aged 17 years and younger, for whom the rate held steady.
• Despite a 4% decline in all drug-induced deaths and a 2% drop in all opioid-related deaths, 2018 saw sharp increases in deaths involving synthetic opioids (up 10%), cocaine (up 5%), and other psychostimulants, such as methamphetamine, ecstasy, amphetamine, and prescription stimulants (up 22%).
• Suicide claimed the lives of 48,344 Americans in 2018. The suicide rate in 2018 was 2% higher than in 2017 and 25% higher than in 2008.
• Suicide rates increased across all demographics except for adults aged 18-54 years, among whom the rate remained stable. Suicide death rates were highest in males (23.4 per 100,000), rural residents (19.7 per 100,000), whites (16.8 per 100,000), and American Indian/Alaska Natives (14.1 per 100,000).
• Between 2017 and 2018, 27 states had higher rates (above 0.04%) of alcohol, drug, and suicide deaths; 23 states and the District of Columbia had lower rates of deaths from those causes.
• States with the highest alcohol, drug, and suicide death rates in 2018 were West Virginia (84.9 per 100,000), New Mexico (82.8 per 100,000), New Hampshire (68.2 per 100,000), and Alaska (67.8 per 100,000).
• States with the lowest rates in 2018 were Texas (31.7 per 100,000), Mississippi (31.7 per 100,000), and Hawaii (34.6 per 100,000).

“Quite simply, too many Americans are dying from preventable causes. The profound racial health disparities seen in these data show that many ethnic minority groups are being left behind in our response efforts,” Benjamin F. Miller, PsyD, Well Being Trust chief strategy officer, said in the release.

“The nation needs a comprehensive framework for excellence in mental health and well-being, one that intentionally provides solutions for American Indians, blacks, Asians and Latinos. With all the other COVID-19 related investments, it’s time for the federal government to fully invest in mental health now and for all states to take action,” said Dr. Miller.

Policy recommendations outlined in the report include investing in prevention; reducing risk factors and promoting resilience in children, families, and communities; engaging all sectors of society to address mental health and substance use disorders; limiting access to lethal means of suicide; and promoting safe storage of medications and firearms.
 

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

Despite decreases in overall opioid overdose deaths in 2018, deaths involving synthetic opioids, cocaine, and other psychostimulants increased sharply in the United States, and alcohol and suicide deaths also rose, new data show.

A report released May 21 by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Well Being Trust shows that 151,964 Americans died from alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Experts warn that these “deaths of despair” may well increase in the wake of COVID-19.

A study released earlier in May estimated that an additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the pandemic (Petterson S et al. “Projected Deaths of Despair From COVID-19,” Well Being Trust. May 8, 2020. WellBeingTrust.org).

“These data are a clarion call to action,” TFAH President and CEO John Auerbach said in a news release.

“We know what works to address deaths of despair but progress has been uneven and death rates continue to climb, with communities of color experiencing higher rates of increases in drug-induced and alcohol deaths,” he said.

“And there’s another immediate concern: The COVID-19 crisis has increased the health burdens and economic pressures on many communities of color,” said Mr. Auerbach.

According to the report, the 2018 national rate for alcohol, drug, and suicide deaths combined was only slightly lower than that reported in 2017 (46.4 vs 46.6 per 100,000).

Among the key findings in the report:

• 37,329 Americans died from alcohol-induced causes in 2018; the rate was up 4% over 2017.
• Alcohol-induced deaths were highest among American Indians (30.0 per 100,000) and adults aged 55 to 74 (27.6 per 100,000). For all population groups, rates of alcohol-related deaths were higher in 2018 than in 2017 except for people aged 17 years and younger, for whom the rate held steady.
• Despite a 4% decline in all drug-induced deaths and a 2% drop in all opioid-related deaths, 2018 saw sharp increases in deaths involving synthetic opioids (up 10%), cocaine (up 5%), and other psychostimulants, such as methamphetamine, ecstasy, amphetamine, and prescription stimulants (up 22%).
• Suicide claimed the lives of 48,344 Americans in 2018. The suicide rate in 2018 was 2% higher than in 2017 and 25% higher than in 2008.
• Suicide rates increased across all demographics except for adults aged 18-54 years, among whom the rate remained stable. Suicide death rates were highest in males (23.4 per 100,000), rural residents (19.7 per 100,000), whites (16.8 per 100,000), and American Indian/Alaska Natives (14.1 per 100,000).
• Between 2017 and 2018, 27 states had higher rates (above 0.04%) of alcohol, drug, and suicide deaths; 23 states and the District of Columbia had lower rates of deaths from those causes.
• States with the highest alcohol, drug, and suicide death rates in 2018 were West Virginia (84.9 per 100,000), New Mexico (82.8 per 100,000), New Hampshire (68.2 per 100,000), and Alaska (67.8 per 100,000).
• States with the lowest rates in 2018 were Texas (31.7 per 100,000), Mississippi (31.7 per 100,000), and Hawaii (34.6 per 100,000).

“Quite simply, too many Americans are dying from preventable causes. The profound racial health disparities seen in these data show that many ethnic minority groups are being left behind in our response efforts,” Benjamin F. Miller, PsyD, Well Being Trust chief strategy officer, said in the release.

“The nation needs a comprehensive framework for excellence in mental health and well-being, one that intentionally provides solutions for American Indians, blacks, Asians and Latinos. With all the other COVID-19 related investments, it’s time for the federal government to fully invest in mental health now and for all states to take action,” said Dr. Miller.

Policy recommendations outlined in the report include investing in prevention; reducing risk factors and promoting resilience in children, families, and communities; engaging all sectors of society to address mental health and substance use disorders; limiting access to lethal means of suicide; and promoting safe storage of medications and firearms.
 

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

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single 3-hour-long group psychosocial intervention designed specifically for patients in intensive outpatient programs for addiction treatment to prevent future suicide resulted in significantly improved knowledge and attitudes regarding suicide that persisted at 6 months of follow-up in a large multicenter randomized effectiveness study, reported Richard K. Ries, MD.

There is an enormous unmet need for evidence-based strategies for preventing addiction-related suicide, since people with substance use disorders have a 10-fold increased risk of suicide. Based upon these new study findings, the Preventing Addiction Related Suicide (PARS) program can now be considered the first such evidence-based intervention for this extremely high-risk population, Dr. Ries said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

“We’ve shown that suicide prevention in intensive outpatient program addiction groups is feasible, easy to train, and highly rated by counselors, and I’d say it’s very adaptable, easy to go national in almost any addiction treatment program, right out of the box,” said Dr. Ries, professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of outpatient psychiatry as well as the psychiatry addiction division at Harborview Medical Center.

The workbook-based PARS program developed by Dr. Ries and colleagues adapted empirically supported suicide prevention best practices from other settings for use in group-based intensive outpatient addiction treatment, which is the most common form of treatment for chemical dependency in the United States. Dr. Ries recognized the need for a program such as PARS because addiction counselors often feel out of their depth regarding suicide-related issues.

“Nothing had ever really been done before on any scale on suicide prevention in addiction centers,” he explained. “We designed the PARS intervention to be integrated right into the counselors’ workflow. They get trained right in their setting in a one-shot deal that takes 2-3 hours. The training was highly rated by counselors as acceptable and effective in their day-to-day work, not ivory tower-type stuff.”

Once the counselors were trained in PARS, they then trained their alcohol- and drug-addicted patients. Elements of the PARS program include information on suicide risk and protective factors, myths and facts about suicide, action steps to take when warning signs of suicide are observed, and local crisis resources.

The effectiveness study was a randomized, stepped-wedge cluster design intervention that included 905 patients in 15 busy community group–based intensive outpatient addiction treatment programs in Western Washington. Patients were randomized to counselor-delivered PARS or treatment as usual, with follow-up assessments at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months.

There was no attempt to enrich the study population for suicidality by prescreening potential enrollees, since participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program already places an individual in a high-risk group. For example, 74% of study participants indicated they had thought of suicide at least once in the past year, compared with a background rate of 4% in the U.S. general population. And 29% of study participants reported a lifetime history of one or more suicide attempts, versus roughly 5% in the general population.

Dr. Ries’ coinvestigator, Katherine Anne Comtois, PhD, MPH, presented the study results. The three key outcomes were improvement on structured measures of suicide knowledge, attitudes, and help-seeking behavior. The PARS recipients showed statistically significant improvement compared with baseline on two of the three: they displayed greater knowledge about suicide and its close relationship with addiction, and less stigmatization and other maladaptive attitudes toward suicide. Scores on all three measures remained unchanged over time in the control group.

“Overall, we had small to medium effect sizes, comparable to what you might see in studies measuring antidepressant effect sizes. I think these were meaningful improvements in knowledge and attitudes,” said Dr. Comtois of the University of Washington.

The PARS group showed a small increase in the third endpoint – willingness to seek professional help for themselves, friends, or family if depressed or suicidal, but this didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, Dr. Comtois noted that the study outcomes were assessed per protocol using an intent-to-treat analysis. This likely underestimated the true effectiveness of the PARS intervention, given that 40% of patients randomized to PARS didn’t actually attend the intervention session.

“People with drug and alcohol problems have complicated lives,” she said by way of explanation for the high no-show rate.

The investigators are now performing a per-protocol analysis of the data, restricted to those subjects who actually attended their session. A long-term look at suicide events and outcomes in the study population is planned.

Dr. Ries and Dr. Comtois reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by a multiyear grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A single 3-hour-long group psychosocial intervention designed specifically for patients in intensive outpatient programs for addiction treatment to prevent future suicide resulted in significantly improved knowledge and attitudes regarding suicide that persisted at 6 months of follow-up in a large multicenter randomized effectiveness study, reported Richard K. Ries, MD.

There is an enormous unmet need for evidence-based strategies for preventing addiction-related suicide, since people with substance use disorders have a 10-fold increased risk of suicide. Based upon these new study findings, the Preventing Addiction Related Suicide (PARS) program can now be considered the first such evidence-based intervention for this extremely high-risk population, Dr. Ries said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

“We’ve shown that suicide prevention in intensive outpatient program addiction groups is feasible, easy to train, and highly rated by counselors, and I’d say it’s very adaptable, easy to go national in almost any addiction treatment program, right out of the box,” said Dr. Ries, professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of outpatient psychiatry as well as the psychiatry addiction division at Harborview Medical Center.

The workbook-based PARS program developed by Dr. Ries and colleagues adapted empirically supported suicide prevention best practices from other settings for use in group-based intensive outpatient addiction treatment, which is the most common form of treatment for chemical dependency in the United States. Dr. Ries recognized the need for a program such as PARS because addiction counselors often feel out of their depth regarding suicide-related issues.

“Nothing had ever really been done before on any scale on suicide prevention in addiction centers,” he explained. “We designed the PARS intervention to be integrated right into the counselors’ workflow. They get trained right in their setting in a one-shot deal that takes 2-3 hours. The training was highly rated by counselors as acceptable and effective in their day-to-day work, not ivory tower-type stuff.”

Once the counselors were trained in PARS, they then trained their alcohol- and drug-addicted patients. Elements of the PARS program include information on suicide risk and protective factors, myths and facts about suicide, action steps to take when warning signs of suicide are observed, and local crisis resources.

The effectiveness study was a randomized, stepped-wedge cluster design intervention that included 905 patients in 15 busy community group–based intensive outpatient addiction treatment programs in Western Washington. Patients were randomized to counselor-delivered PARS or treatment as usual, with follow-up assessments at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months.

There was no attempt to enrich the study population for suicidality by prescreening potential enrollees, since participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program already places an individual in a high-risk group. For example, 74% of study participants indicated they had thought of suicide at least once in the past year, compared with a background rate of 4% in the U.S. general population. And 29% of study participants reported a lifetime history of one or more suicide attempts, versus roughly 5% in the general population.

Dr. Ries’ coinvestigator, Katherine Anne Comtois, PhD, MPH, presented the study results. The three key outcomes were improvement on structured measures of suicide knowledge, attitudes, and help-seeking behavior. The PARS recipients showed statistically significant improvement compared with baseline on two of the three: they displayed greater knowledge about suicide and its close relationship with addiction, and less stigmatization and other maladaptive attitudes toward suicide. Scores on all three measures remained unchanged over time in the control group.

“Overall, we had small to medium effect sizes, comparable to what you might see in studies measuring antidepressant effect sizes. I think these were meaningful improvements in knowledge and attitudes,” said Dr. Comtois of the University of Washington.

The PARS group showed a small increase in the third endpoint – willingness to seek professional help for themselves, friends, or family if depressed or suicidal, but this didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, Dr. Comtois noted that the study outcomes were assessed per protocol using an intent-to-treat analysis. This likely underestimated the true effectiveness of the PARS intervention, given that 40% of patients randomized to PARS didn’t actually attend the intervention session.

“People with drug and alcohol problems have complicated lives,” she said by way of explanation for the high no-show rate.

The investigators are now performing a per-protocol analysis of the data, restricted to those subjects who actually attended their session. A long-term look at suicide events and outcomes in the study population is planned.

Dr. Ries and Dr. Comtois reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by a multiyear grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A single 3-hour-long group psychosocial intervention designed specifically for patients in intensive outpatient programs for addiction treatment to prevent future suicide resulted in significantly improved knowledge and attitudes regarding suicide that persisted at 6 months of follow-up in a large multicenter randomized effectiveness study, reported Richard K. Ries, MD.

There is an enormous unmet need for evidence-based strategies for preventing addiction-related suicide, since people with substance use disorders have a 10-fold increased risk of suicide. Based upon these new study findings, the Preventing Addiction Related Suicide (PARS) program can now be considered the first such evidence-based intervention for this extremely high-risk population, Dr. Ries said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

“We’ve shown that suicide prevention in intensive outpatient program addiction groups is feasible, easy to train, and highly rated by counselors, and I’d say it’s very adaptable, easy to go national in almost any addiction treatment program, right out of the box,” said Dr. Ries, professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of outpatient psychiatry as well as the psychiatry addiction division at Harborview Medical Center.

The workbook-based PARS program developed by Dr. Ries and colleagues adapted empirically supported suicide prevention best practices from other settings for use in group-based intensive outpatient addiction treatment, which is the most common form of treatment for chemical dependency in the United States. Dr. Ries recognized the need for a program such as PARS because addiction counselors often feel out of their depth regarding suicide-related issues.

“Nothing had ever really been done before on any scale on suicide prevention in addiction centers,” he explained. “We designed the PARS intervention to be integrated right into the counselors’ workflow. They get trained right in their setting in a one-shot deal that takes 2-3 hours. The training was highly rated by counselors as acceptable and effective in their day-to-day work, not ivory tower-type stuff.”

Once the counselors were trained in PARS, they then trained their alcohol- and drug-addicted patients. Elements of the PARS program include information on suicide risk and protective factors, myths and facts about suicide, action steps to take when warning signs of suicide are observed, and local crisis resources.

The effectiveness study was a randomized, stepped-wedge cluster design intervention that included 905 patients in 15 busy community group–based intensive outpatient addiction treatment programs in Western Washington. Patients were randomized to counselor-delivered PARS or treatment as usual, with follow-up assessments at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months.

There was no attempt to enrich the study population for suicidality by prescreening potential enrollees, since participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program already places an individual in a high-risk group. For example, 74% of study participants indicated they had thought of suicide at least once in the past year, compared with a background rate of 4% in the U.S. general population. And 29% of study participants reported a lifetime history of one or more suicide attempts, versus roughly 5% in the general population.

Dr. Ries’ coinvestigator, Katherine Anne Comtois, PhD, MPH, presented the study results. The three key outcomes were improvement on structured measures of suicide knowledge, attitudes, and help-seeking behavior. The PARS recipients showed statistically significant improvement compared with baseline on two of the three: they displayed greater knowledge about suicide and its close relationship with addiction, and less stigmatization and other maladaptive attitudes toward suicide. Scores on all three measures remained unchanged over time in the control group.

“Overall, we had small to medium effect sizes, comparable to what you might see in studies measuring antidepressant effect sizes. I think these were meaningful improvements in knowledge and attitudes,” said Dr. Comtois of the University of Washington.

The PARS group showed a small increase in the third endpoint – willingness to seek professional help for themselves, friends, or family if depressed or suicidal, but this didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, Dr. Comtois noted that the study outcomes were assessed per protocol using an intent-to-treat analysis. This likely underestimated the true effectiveness of the PARS intervention, given that 40% of patients randomized to PARS didn’t actually attend the intervention session.

“People with drug and alcohol problems have complicated lives,” she said by way of explanation for the high no-show rate.

The investigators are now performing a per-protocol analysis of the data, restricted to those subjects who actually attended their session. A long-term look at suicide events and outcomes in the study population is planned.

Dr. Ries and Dr. Comtois reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by a multiyear grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Depression is associated with decreased neurologic function and new brain lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

In an observational study of more than 2500 patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), participants with self-reported depression were more likely to have worse scores on neuroperformance measures, such as processing speed tests, than their peers without depression.

At baseline, the group with depression also had greater odds of having at least one new contrast-enhancing lesion on MRI.

“Our results suggest that depression is not merely a reactive symptom but indicates increased risk of future MS disease activity,” the investigators note.

Lead author Jenny Feng, MD, clinical associate at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at Cleveland Clinic, added that depression should be routinely screened for in all patients with MS, something done routinely at her center.

“Every single patient that comes through the door with newly diagnosed MS, we refer to neuropsychology to screen for depression; and if there is depression, then we actively manage it because it does have an effect” on patients, she told Medscape Medical News.

“Depression isn’t just a neuropsychiatric disease,” Feng added. As shown in their study, “it may have effects on MS, especially with regards to performance in neurological function testing.”

The research is presented on AAN.com as part of the American Academy of Neurology 2020 Science Highlights. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the AAN had to cancel its 2020 annual meeting.

Associations Have Been “Unclear”

Although inflammatory, psychosocial, and neurodegenerative factors “have been hypothesized as etiologies” for why depression is commonly found in patients with MS, the full association between depression and MS disease activity “is not clear,” the investigators note.

For the current study, they assessed data from the Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS-PATHS) database, an ongoing collaborative network of seven MS centers in the United States and three in Europe.

MS disease history and MRI data were examined, as well as 12-month scores on neuroperformance tests measuring processing speed (Symbol Digit Modalities Test), walking speed (Timed 25-Foot Walk), and manual dexterity (Nine-Hole Peg Test).

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), as measured with the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) and patient-determined disease steps, were also assessed. Depression was defined as a depression T score at baseline greater than “the 50th percentile” on the Neuro-QoL.

In the patient sample, 1333 of the participants with RRMS were classified as “not depressed” (73.7% women; mean age, 45.6 years; disease duration, 13.7 years) while 1172 were “depressed” (78.4% women; mean age, 45.9 years; disease duration, 14.3 years).

“To balance for baseline variances in the observational cohort between group with depression and group without depression, propensity score analysis was used to adjust for potential confounding factors,” the investigators report.

Worse Performance

After adjustment for baseline covariates, results showed that the depressed patients performed worse on the walking speed test (0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.038-0.918) and processing speed test (–1.899; 95% CI, –3.548 to –0.250).

The depressed group also had increased odds at baseline of having new contrast-enhancing lesions (odds ratio, 5.89; 95% CI, 2.236-15.517). This demonstrated an “association of depression and neuroinflammatory activity” in the central nervous system, the investigators note.

At 12 months, processing speed continued to be worse in the depressed group (–1.68; 95% CI, –3.254 to –0.105).

There were trends, albeit insignificant, for decreased walking speed scores at 12 months and for decreased manual dexterity scores at both baseline and at 12 months for the participants who were depressed.

Interestingly, there were “no significant differences in PROs at month 12, despite worsening neuroperformance,” the investigators report.

“This means that patients themselves may not even realize that they were getting worse,” Feng said.

Underpowered Study?

Further results showed nonsignificant trends for increased T2 lesion volume and white matter fraction and decreased brain volume, gray matter fraction, and cortical gray matter volume at baseline and at 12 months in the depressed group.

The researchers note that study limitations include the unavailability of information on treatment compliance for depression or date of depression onset.

Feng added that because this was an observational study, other missing data included depression status for some patients at year 1 and some MRI metrics.

“So this may have been underpowered to detect some of the results. The power may have been inadequate to detect all changes,” she said.

The investigators write that future research should assess larger sample sizes with longer follow-ups and should use more advanced MRI measures, such as diffusion tensor imaging or functional MRI.

In addition, they will continue examining data from MS-PATHS. “With the newest data cut, we have new patients that we can analyze. So perhaps that can provide sufficient power to detect [more MRI] changes,” Feng said.

Unusual, Intriguing Findings

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Mark Freedman, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa and director of the Multiple Sclerosis Research Clinic at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that he wasn’t terribly surprised” by the overall findings.

“We’ve known for years that patients who are depressed don’t do as well on our performance methods,” said Freedman, who was not involved with the research.

However, the current investigators “took a huge number of patients in this multicenter study and started using some of the statistical methods we’ve seen in the use of real-world evidence,” he noted.

“So you’re looking at some outcome measures and you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would it influence that?’ and ‘Did it happen by chance or not?’ And you ask why it is that depressed people might actually have more lesions on their MRI, which is something that is unusual,” Freedman said.

“When you start to look at this, even when you’re trying to standardize things for the differences that we know of, there are some stuff that comes out as intriguing. In general, I think those depressed patients did worse on several outcome measures that one would say, ‘That’s somewhat surprising.’ That’s why this group was very careful to not conclude absolutely that depression drives this disease. But it was consistently trending in the direction that it looks like there was more inflammatory activity in these people,” he said.

He echoed the investigators’ note that drug adherence and which depression treatment was used wasn’t controlled for; and he added that depression in the study was not based on receiving a diagnosis of clinical depression but on self-report.

Still, the patients classified as depressed “did worse. They didn’t walk as fast, which was interesting; and we know that cognitive performance is often damped because of poor concentration. But how do you get worse MRIs? This study is raising a question and [the researchers] conclude that it may be that depression might be an independent factor” for that outcome, Freedman said.

“It might be that you could get more out of a particular [MS] medicine if you pay attention to depression; and if that’s the investigators’ conclusion, and I think it is, then I certainly agree with it.”

Freedman noted that, instead of a blanket recommendation that all patients with MS should be screened for depression, he thinks clinicians, especially those at smaller centers, should focus on what’s best for treating all aspects of an individual patient.

“Don’t try to manage them if you’re not going to manage the entire picture. Looking at depression and mood and other things is very important. And if you have the capacity for an official screening, I think it’s wonderful; but not everybody does,” he said.

Feng and Freedman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Freedman is currently a member of the Medscape Neurology Advisory Board.
 

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depression is associated with decreased neurologic function and new brain lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

In an observational study of more than 2500 patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), participants with self-reported depression were more likely to have worse scores on neuroperformance measures, such as processing speed tests, than their peers without depression.

At baseline, the group with depression also had greater odds of having at least one new contrast-enhancing lesion on MRI.

“Our results suggest that depression is not merely a reactive symptom but indicates increased risk of future MS disease activity,” the investigators note.

Lead author Jenny Feng, MD, clinical associate at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at Cleveland Clinic, added that depression should be routinely screened for in all patients with MS, something done routinely at her center.

“Every single patient that comes through the door with newly diagnosed MS, we refer to neuropsychology to screen for depression; and if there is depression, then we actively manage it because it does have an effect” on patients, she told Medscape Medical News.

“Depression isn’t just a neuropsychiatric disease,” Feng added. As shown in their study, “it may have effects on MS, especially with regards to performance in neurological function testing.”

The research is presented on AAN.com as part of the American Academy of Neurology 2020 Science Highlights. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the AAN had to cancel its 2020 annual meeting.

Associations Have Been “Unclear”

Although inflammatory, psychosocial, and neurodegenerative factors “have been hypothesized as etiologies” for why depression is commonly found in patients with MS, the full association between depression and MS disease activity “is not clear,” the investigators note.

For the current study, they assessed data from the Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS-PATHS) database, an ongoing collaborative network of seven MS centers in the United States and three in Europe.

MS disease history and MRI data were examined, as well as 12-month scores on neuroperformance tests measuring processing speed (Symbol Digit Modalities Test), walking speed (Timed 25-Foot Walk), and manual dexterity (Nine-Hole Peg Test).

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), as measured with the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) and patient-determined disease steps, were also assessed. Depression was defined as a depression T score at baseline greater than “the 50th percentile” on the Neuro-QoL.

In the patient sample, 1333 of the participants with RRMS were classified as “not depressed” (73.7% women; mean age, 45.6 years; disease duration, 13.7 years) while 1172 were “depressed” (78.4% women; mean age, 45.9 years; disease duration, 14.3 years).

“To balance for baseline variances in the observational cohort between group with depression and group without depression, propensity score analysis was used to adjust for potential confounding factors,” the investigators report.

Worse Performance

After adjustment for baseline covariates, results showed that the depressed patients performed worse on the walking speed test (0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.038-0.918) and processing speed test (–1.899; 95% CI, –3.548 to –0.250).

The depressed group also had increased odds at baseline of having new contrast-enhancing lesions (odds ratio, 5.89; 95% CI, 2.236-15.517). This demonstrated an “association of depression and neuroinflammatory activity” in the central nervous system, the investigators note.

At 12 months, processing speed continued to be worse in the depressed group (–1.68; 95% CI, –3.254 to –0.105).

There were trends, albeit insignificant, for decreased walking speed scores at 12 months and for decreased manual dexterity scores at both baseline and at 12 months for the participants who were depressed.

Interestingly, there were “no significant differences in PROs at month 12, despite worsening neuroperformance,” the investigators report.

“This means that patients themselves may not even realize that they were getting worse,” Feng said.

Underpowered Study?

Further results showed nonsignificant trends for increased T2 lesion volume and white matter fraction and decreased brain volume, gray matter fraction, and cortical gray matter volume at baseline and at 12 months in the depressed group.

The researchers note that study limitations include the unavailability of information on treatment compliance for depression or date of depression onset.

Feng added that because this was an observational study, other missing data included depression status for some patients at year 1 and some MRI metrics.

“So this may have been underpowered to detect some of the results. The power may have been inadequate to detect all changes,” she said.

The investigators write that future research should assess larger sample sizes with longer follow-ups and should use more advanced MRI measures, such as diffusion tensor imaging or functional MRI.

In addition, they will continue examining data from MS-PATHS. “With the newest data cut, we have new patients that we can analyze. So perhaps that can provide sufficient power to detect [more MRI] changes,” Feng said.

Unusual, Intriguing Findings

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Mark Freedman, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa and director of the Multiple Sclerosis Research Clinic at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that he wasn’t terribly surprised” by the overall findings.

“We’ve known for years that patients who are depressed don’t do as well on our performance methods,” said Freedman, who was not involved with the research.

However, the current investigators “took a huge number of patients in this multicenter study and started using some of the statistical methods we’ve seen in the use of real-world evidence,” he noted.

“So you’re looking at some outcome measures and you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would it influence that?’ and ‘Did it happen by chance or not?’ And you ask why it is that depressed people might actually have more lesions on their MRI, which is something that is unusual,” Freedman said.

“When you start to look at this, even when you’re trying to standardize things for the differences that we know of, there are some stuff that comes out as intriguing. In general, I think those depressed patients did worse on several outcome measures that one would say, ‘That’s somewhat surprising.’ That’s why this group was very careful to not conclude absolutely that depression drives this disease. But it was consistently trending in the direction that it looks like there was more inflammatory activity in these people,” he said.

He echoed the investigators’ note that drug adherence and which depression treatment was used wasn’t controlled for; and he added that depression in the study was not based on receiving a diagnosis of clinical depression but on self-report.

Still, the patients classified as depressed “did worse. They didn’t walk as fast, which was interesting; and we know that cognitive performance is often damped because of poor concentration. But how do you get worse MRIs? This study is raising a question and [the researchers] conclude that it may be that depression might be an independent factor” for that outcome, Freedman said.

“It might be that you could get more out of a particular [MS] medicine if you pay attention to depression; and if that’s the investigators’ conclusion, and I think it is, then I certainly agree with it.”

Freedman noted that, instead of a blanket recommendation that all patients with MS should be screened for depression, he thinks clinicians, especially those at smaller centers, should focus on what’s best for treating all aspects of an individual patient.

“Don’t try to manage them if you’re not going to manage the entire picture. Looking at depression and mood and other things is very important. And if you have the capacity for an official screening, I think it’s wonderful; but not everybody does,” he said.

Feng and Freedman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Freedman is currently a member of the Medscape Neurology Advisory Board.
 

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depression is associated with decreased neurologic function and new brain lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

In an observational study of more than 2500 patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), participants with self-reported depression were more likely to have worse scores on neuroperformance measures, such as processing speed tests, than their peers without depression.

At baseline, the group with depression also had greater odds of having at least one new contrast-enhancing lesion on MRI.

“Our results suggest that depression is not merely a reactive symptom but indicates increased risk of future MS disease activity,” the investigators note.

Lead author Jenny Feng, MD, clinical associate at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at Cleveland Clinic, added that depression should be routinely screened for in all patients with MS, something done routinely at her center.

“Every single patient that comes through the door with newly diagnosed MS, we refer to neuropsychology to screen for depression; and if there is depression, then we actively manage it because it does have an effect” on patients, she told Medscape Medical News.

“Depression isn’t just a neuropsychiatric disease,” Feng added. As shown in their study, “it may have effects on MS, especially with regards to performance in neurological function testing.”

The research is presented on AAN.com as part of the American Academy of Neurology 2020 Science Highlights. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the AAN had to cancel its 2020 annual meeting.

Associations Have Been “Unclear”

Although inflammatory, psychosocial, and neurodegenerative factors “have been hypothesized as etiologies” for why depression is commonly found in patients with MS, the full association between depression and MS disease activity “is not clear,” the investigators note.

For the current study, they assessed data from the Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS-PATHS) database, an ongoing collaborative network of seven MS centers in the United States and three in Europe.

MS disease history and MRI data were examined, as well as 12-month scores on neuroperformance tests measuring processing speed (Symbol Digit Modalities Test), walking speed (Timed 25-Foot Walk), and manual dexterity (Nine-Hole Peg Test).

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), as measured with the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) and patient-determined disease steps, were also assessed. Depression was defined as a depression T score at baseline greater than “the 50th percentile” on the Neuro-QoL.

In the patient sample, 1333 of the participants with RRMS were classified as “not depressed” (73.7% women; mean age, 45.6 years; disease duration, 13.7 years) while 1172 were “depressed” (78.4% women; mean age, 45.9 years; disease duration, 14.3 years).

“To balance for baseline variances in the observational cohort between group with depression and group without depression, propensity score analysis was used to adjust for potential confounding factors,” the investigators report.

Worse Performance

After adjustment for baseline covariates, results showed that the depressed patients performed worse on the walking speed test (0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.038-0.918) and processing speed test (–1.899; 95% CI, –3.548 to –0.250).

The depressed group also had increased odds at baseline of having new contrast-enhancing lesions (odds ratio, 5.89; 95% CI, 2.236-15.517). This demonstrated an “association of depression and neuroinflammatory activity” in the central nervous system, the investigators note.

At 12 months, processing speed continued to be worse in the depressed group (–1.68; 95% CI, –3.254 to –0.105).

There were trends, albeit insignificant, for decreased walking speed scores at 12 months and for decreased manual dexterity scores at both baseline and at 12 months for the participants who were depressed.

Interestingly, there were “no significant differences in PROs at month 12, despite worsening neuroperformance,” the investigators report.

“This means that patients themselves may not even realize that they were getting worse,” Feng said.

Underpowered Study?

Further results showed nonsignificant trends for increased T2 lesion volume and white matter fraction and decreased brain volume, gray matter fraction, and cortical gray matter volume at baseline and at 12 months in the depressed group.

The researchers note that study limitations include the unavailability of information on treatment compliance for depression or date of depression onset.

Feng added that because this was an observational study, other missing data included depression status for some patients at year 1 and some MRI metrics.

“So this may have been underpowered to detect some of the results. The power may have been inadequate to detect all changes,” she said.

The investigators write that future research should assess larger sample sizes with longer follow-ups and should use more advanced MRI measures, such as diffusion tensor imaging or functional MRI.

In addition, they will continue examining data from MS-PATHS. “With the newest data cut, we have new patients that we can analyze. So perhaps that can provide sufficient power to detect [more MRI] changes,” Feng said.

Unusual, Intriguing Findings

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Mark Freedman, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa and director of the Multiple Sclerosis Research Clinic at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that he wasn’t terribly surprised” by the overall findings.

“We’ve known for years that patients who are depressed don’t do as well on our performance methods,” said Freedman, who was not involved with the research.

However, the current investigators “took a huge number of patients in this multicenter study and started using some of the statistical methods we’ve seen in the use of real-world evidence,” he noted.

“So you’re looking at some outcome measures and you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would it influence that?’ and ‘Did it happen by chance or not?’ And you ask why it is that depressed people might actually have more lesions on their MRI, which is something that is unusual,” Freedman said.

“When you start to look at this, even when you’re trying to standardize things for the differences that we know of, there are some stuff that comes out as intriguing. In general, I think those depressed patients did worse on several outcome measures that one would say, ‘That’s somewhat surprising.’ That’s why this group was very careful to not conclude absolutely that depression drives this disease. But it was consistently trending in the direction that it looks like there was more inflammatory activity in these people,” he said.

He echoed the investigators’ note that drug adherence and which depression treatment was used wasn’t controlled for; and he added that depression in the study was not based on receiving a diagnosis of clinical depression but on self-report.

Still, the patients classified as depressed “did worse. They didn’t walk as fast, which was interesting; and we know that cognitive performance is often damped because of poor concentration. But how do you get worse MRIs? This study is raising a question and [the researchers] conclude that it may be that depression might be an independent factor” for that outcome, Freedman said.

“It might be that you could get more out of a particular [MS] medicine if you pay attention to depression; and if that’s the investigators’ conclusion, and I think it is, then I certainly agree with it.”

Freedman noted that, instead of a blanket recommendation that all patients with MS should be screened for depression, he thinks clinicians, especially those at smaller centers, should focus on what’s best for treating all aspects of an individual patient.

“Don’t try to manage them if you’re not going to manage the entire picture. Looking at depression and mood and other things is very important. And if you have the capacity for an official screening, I think it’s wonderful; but not everybody does,” he said.

Feng and Freedman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Freedman is currently a member of the Medscape Neurology Advisory Board.
 

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 affects the physical, psychological, and social health of people around the world. In the United States, newly reported cases are rising at alarming rates.

As of early May, more than 1.3 million people were confirmed to be COVID-19 infected in the United States and more than 4 million cases were reported globally.¹

According to new internal projections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by June 1, the number of daily deaths could reach about 3,000. By the end of June, a draft CDC report projects that the United States will see 200,000 new cases each day.²

COVID-19 undeniably harms mental health. It gravely instills uncertainty and anxiety, sometimes compounded by the grief of losing loved ones and not being able to mourn those losses in traditional ways. The pandemic also has led to occupational and/or financial losses. Physical distancing and shelter-in-place practices make it even harder to cope with those stresses, although those practices mitigate the dangers. The fears tied to those practices are thought to be keeping some patients with health problems from seeking needed care from hospital EDs.³ In light of the mental health crisis emerging because of the profound impact of this pandemic on all aspects of life, clinicians should start working with public health and political leaders to develop plans to address these issues now.
 

Known impact of previous outbreaks

Previous disease outbreaks evidence a similar pattern of heightened anxiety as the patterns seen with COVID-19. For example, during the 2009 swine flu outbreak, 36 surveys of more than 3,000 participants in the United Kingdom found that 9.6%-32.9% of the participants were “very” or “fairly” worried about the possibility of contracting swine flu.⁴ The 1995 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo produced stigmatization tied to the illness. That outbreak provided many lessons for physicians.⁵

The metaphors ascribed to different diseases affect communities’ responses to it. The SARS virus has been particularly insidious and has been thought of as a “plague.”⁶ Epidemics of all kinds cause fears, not only of contracting the disease and dying, but also of social exclusion.⁷ The emotional responses to COVID-19 can precipitate anxiety, depression, insomnia, and somatic symptoms. Acute stress disorder, PTSD, substance use, and suicide can emerge from maladaptive defenses intended to cope with pandemics.^8,9

Repeated exposure to news media about the disease adds to theses stresss.¹⁰ Constant news consumption can result in panicky hoarding of resources, such as masks; gloves; first-aid kits; alcohol hand rubs; and daily necessities such as food, water, and toilet paper.
 

Who is most affected by outbreaks?

Those most affected after a disease outbreak are patients, their families, and medical personnel. In one study, researchers who conducted an online survey of 1,210 respondents in 194 cities in China during the early phase of the outbreak found that the psychological effects were worst among women, students, and vulnerable populations.¹¹

Meanwhile, a 2003 cross-sectional survey of 1,115 ethnic Chinese adults in Hong Kong who responded to the SARS outbreak found that the respondents most likely to heed precautionary measures against the infection were “older, female, more educated people as well as those with a positive contact history and SARS-like symptoms.”¹²

Negative mental health consequences of a disease outbreak might persist long after the infection has dissipated. An increased association has been found between people with mental illness and posttraumatic stress following many disasters.^13,14,15

Political and health care leaders should develop plans aimed at helping people copewith pandemics.¹⁶ Such strategies should include prioritizing treatment of the physical and mental health needs of patients infected with COVID-19 and of the general population. Screening for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts ought to be implemented, and specialized psychiatric care teams should be assigned.¹⁷ We know that psychiatrists and other physicians turned to telemedicine to provide support, psychotherapy, and medical attention to patients soon after physical distancing measures were put into place. Those kinds of quick responses are important for our patients.

Fear of contagious diseases often creates social divisions. Governments should offer accurate information to reduce the detrimental effect of rumors and false propaganda.¹⁸ “Social distancing” is a misleading term; these practices should be referred to as “physical distancing.” We should encourage patients to maintain interpersonal contacts – albeit at a distance – to reach out to those in need, and to support one another during these troubled times.¹⁹

References

1. World Health Organization. Situation Report–107. 2020 May 6.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Situation Update. 2020 Apr 30.

3. O’Brien M. “Are Americans in medical crisis avoiding the ER due to coronavirus?” PBS Newshour. 2020 May 6.

4. Rubin G et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jul;14(340):183-266.

5. Hall R et al. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):466-52.

6. Verghese A. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:932-3.

7. Interagency Standing Committee. Briefing note on addressing health and psychosocial aspects of COVID-19 Outbreak – Version 11. 2020 Feb.

8. Sim K et al. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68:195-202.

9. Shigemura J et al. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74:281-2.

10. Garfin DR et al. Health Psychol. 2020 May;39(5):355-7.

11. Wang C et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.3390/ijerph1751729.

12. Leung GM et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Nov;57(1):857-63.

13. Xiang Y et al. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16:1741-4.

14. Alvarez J, Hunt M. J Trauma Stress. 2005 Oct 18(5);18:497-505.

15. Cukor J et al. Depress Anxiety. 2011 Mar;28(3):210-7.

16. Horton R. Lancet. 2020 Feb;395(10222):400.

17. Xiang Y-T et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 4;7:228-9.

18. World Health Organization. “Rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for coronavirus (COVID-19).” Interim Guidance. 2020 Mar.

19. Brooks S et al. Lancet 2020 Mar 14;395:912-20.

Dr. Doppalapudi is affiliated with Griffin Memorial Hospital in Norman, Okla. Dr. Lippmann is emeritus professor of psychiatry and also in family medicine at the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Doppalapudi and Dr. Lippmann disclosed no conflicts of interest.

COVID-19 affects the physical, psychological, and social health of people around the world. In the United States, newly reported cases are rising at alarming rates.

As of early May, more than 1.3 million people were confirmed to be COVID-19 infected in the United States and more than 4 million cases were reported globally.¹

According to new internal projections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by June 1, the number of daily deaths could reach about 3,000. By the end of June, a draft CDC report projects that the United States will see 200,000 new cases each day.²

COVID-19 undeniably harms mental health. It gravely instills uncertainty and anxiety, sometimes compounded by the grief of losing loved ones and not being able to mourn those losses in traditional ways. The pandemic also has led to occupational and/or financial losses. Physical distancing and shelter-in-place practices make it even harder to cope with those stresses, although those practices mitigate the dangers. The fears tied to those practices are thought to be keeping some patients with health problems from seeking needed care from hospital EDs.³ In light of the mental health crisis emerging because of the profound impact of this pandemic on all aspects of life, clinicians should start working with public health and political leaders to develop plans to address these issues now.
 

Known impact of previous outbreaks

Previous disease outbreaks evidence a similar pattern of heightened anxiety as the patterns seen with COVID-19. For example, during the 2009 swine flu outbreak, 36 surveys of more than 3,000 participants in the United Kingdom found that 9.6%-32.9% of the participants were “very” or “fairly” worried about the possibility of contracting swine flu.⁴ The 1995 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo produced stigmatization tied to the illness. That outbreak provided many lessons for physicians.⁵

The metaphors ascribed to different diseases affect communities’ responses to it. The SARS virus has been particularly insidious and has been thought of as a “plague.”⁶ Epidemics of all kinds cause fears, not only of contracting the disease and dying, but also of social exclusion.⁷ The emotional responses to COVID-19 can precipitate anxiety, depression, insomnia, and somatic symptoms. Acute stress disorder, PTSD, substance use, and suicide can emerge from maladaptive defenses intended to cope with pandemics.^8,9

Repeated exposure to news media about the disease adds to theses stresss.¹⁰ Constant news consumption can result in panicky hoarding of resources, such as masks; gloves; first-aid kits; alcohol hand rubs; and daily necessities such as food, water, and toilet paper.
 

Who is most affected by outbreaks?

Those most affected after a disease outbreak are patients, their families, and medical personnel. In one study, researchers who conducted an online survey of 1,210 respondents in 194 cities in China during the early phase of the outbreak found that the psychological effects were worst among women, students, and vulnerable populations.¹¹

Meanwhile, a 2003 cross-sectional survey of 1,115 ethnic Chinese adults in Hong Kong who responded to the SARS outbreak found that the respondents most likely to heed precautionary measures against the infection were “older, female, more educated people as well as those with a positive contact history and SARS-like symptoms.”¹²

Negative mental health consequences of a disease outbreak might persist long after the infection has dissipated. An increased association has been found between people with mental illness and posttraumatic stress following many disasters.^13,14,15

Political and health care leaders should develop plans aimed at helping people copewith pandemics.¹⁶ Such strategies should include prioritizing treatment of the physical and mental health needs of patients infected with COVID-19 and of the general population. Screening for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts ought to be implemented, and specialized psychiatric care teams should be assigned.¹⁷ We know that psychiatrists and other physicians turned to telemedicine to provide support, psychotherapy, and medical attention to patients soon after physical distancing measures were put into place. Those kinds of quick responses are important for our patients.

Fear of contagious diseases often creates social divisions. Governments should offer accurate information to reduce the detrimental effect of rumors and false propaganda.¹⁸ “Social distancing” is a misleading term; these practices should be referred to as “physical distancing.” We should encourage patients to maintain interpersonal contacts – albeit at a distance – to reach out to those in need, and to support one another during these troubled times.¹⁹

References

1. World Health Organization. Situation Report–107. 2020 May 6.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Situation Update. 2020 Apr 30.

3. O’Brien M. “Are Americans in medical crisis avoiding the ER due to coronavirus?” PBS Newshour. 2020 May 6.

4. Rubin G et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jul;14(340):183-266.

5. Hall R et al. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):466-52.

6. Verghese A. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:932-3.

7. Interagency Standing Committee. Briefing note on addressing health and psychosocial aspects of COVID-19 Outbreak – Version 11. 2020 Feb.

8. Sim K et al. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68:195-202.

9. Shigemura J et al. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74:281-2.

10. Garfin DR et al. Health Psychol. 2020 May;39(5):355-7.

11. Wang C et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.3390/ijerph1751729.

12. Leung GM et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Nov;57(1):857-63.

13. Xiang Y et al. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16:1741-4.

14. Alvarez J, Hunt M. J Trauma Stress. 2005 Oct 18(5);18:497-505.

15. Cukor J et al. Depress Anxiety. 2011 Mar;28(3):210-7.

16. Horton R. Lancet. 2020 Feb;395(10222):400.

17. Xiang Y-T et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 4;7:228-9.

18. World Health Organization. “Rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for coronavirus (COVID-19).” Interim Guidance. 2020 Mar.

19. Brooks S et al. Lancet 2020 Mar 14;395:912-20.

Dr. Doppalapudi is affiliated with Griffin Memorial Hospital in Norman, Okla. Dr. Lippmann is emeritus professor of psychiatry and also in family medicine at the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Doppalapudi and Dr. Lippmann disclosed no conflicts of interest.

COVID-19 affects the physical, psychological, and social health of people around the world. In the United States, newly reported cases are rising at alarming rates.

As of early May, more than 1.3 million people were confirmed to be COVID-19 infected in the United States and more than 4 million cases were reported globally.¹

According to new internal projections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by June 1, the number of daily deaths could reach about 3,000. By the end of June, a draft CDC report projects that the United States will see 200,000 new cases each day.²

COVID-19 undeniably harms mental health. It gravely instills uncertainty and anxiety, sometimes compounded by the grief of losing loved ones and not being able to mourn those losses in traditional ways. The pandemic also has led to occupational and/or financial losses. Physical distancing and shelter-in-place practices make it even harder to cope with those stresses, although those practices mitigate the dangers. The fears tied to those practices are thought to be keeping some patients with health problems from seeking needed care from hospital EDs.³ In light of the mental health crisis emerging because of the profound impact of this pandemic on all aspects of life, clinicians should start working with public health and political leaders to develop plans to address these issues now.
 

Known impact of previous outbreaks

Previous disease outbreaks evidence a similar pattern of heightened anxiety as the patterns seen with COVID-19. For example, during the 2009 swine flu outbreak, 36 surveys of more than 3,000 participants in the United Kingdom found that 9.6%-32.9% of the participants were “very” or “fairly” worried about the possibility of contracting swine flu.⁴ The 1995 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo produced stigmatization tied to the illness. That outbreak provided many lessons for physicians.⁵

The metaphors ascribed to different diseases affect communities’ responses to it. The SARS virus has been particularly insidious and has been thought of as a “plague.”⁶ Epidemics of all kinds cause fears, not only of contracting the disease and dying, but also of social exclusion.⁷ The emotional responses to COVID-19 can precipitate anxiety, depression, insomnia, and somatic symptoms. Acute stress disorder, PTSD, substance use, and suicide can emerge from maladaptive defenses intended to cope with pandemics.^8,9

Repeated exposure to news media about the disease adds to theses stresss.¹⁰ Constant news consumption can result in panicky hoarding of resources, such as masks; gloves; first-aid kits; alcohol hand rubs; and daily necessities such as food, water, and toilet paper.
 

Who is most affected by outbreaks?

Those most affected after a disease outbreak are patients, their families, and medical personnel. In one study, researchers who conducted an online survey of 1,210 respondents in 194 cities in China during the early phase of the outbreak found that the psychological effects were worst among women, students, and vulnerable populations.¹¹

Meanwhile, a 2003 cross-sectional survey of 1,115 ethnic Chinese adults in Hong Kong who responded to the SARS outbreak found that the respondents most likely to heed precautionary measures against the infection were “older, female, more educated people as well as those with a positive contact history and SARS-like symptoms.”¹²

Negative mental health consequences of a disease outbreak might persist long after the infection has dissipated. An increased association has been found between people with mental illness and posttraumatic stress following many disasters.^13,14,15

Political and health care leaders should develop plans aimed at helping people copewith pandemics.¹⁶ Such strategies should include prioritizing treatment of the physical and mental health needs of patients infected with COVID-19 and of the general population. Screening for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts ought to be implemented, and specialized psychiatric care teams should be assigned.¹⁷ We know that psychiatrists and other physicians turned to telemedicine to provide support, psychotherapy, and medical attention to patients soon after physical distancing measures were put into place. Those kinds of quick responses are important for our patients.

Fear of contagious diseases often creates social divisions. Governments should offer accurate information to reduce the detrimental effect of rumors and false propaganda.¹⁸ “Social distancing” is a misleading term; these practices should be referred to as “physical distancing.” We should encourage patients to maintain interpersonal contacts – albeit at a distance – to reach out to those in need, and to support one another during these troubled times.¹⁹

References

1. World Health Organization. Situation Report–107. 2020 May 6.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Situation Update. 2020 Apr 30.

3. O’Brien M. “Are Americans in medical crisis avoiding the ER due to coronavirus?” PBS Newshour. 2020 May 6.

4. Rubin G et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jul;14(340):183-266.

5. Hall R et al. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):466-52.

6. Verghese A. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:932-3.

7. Interagency Standing Committee. Briefing note on addressing health and psychosocial aspects of COVID-19 Outbreak – Version 11. 2020 Feb.

8. Sim K et al. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68:195-202.

9. Shigemura J et al. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74:281-2.

10. Garfin DR et al. Health Psychol. 2020 May;39(5):355-7.

11. Wang C et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.3390/ijerph1751729.

12. Leung GM et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Nov;57(1):857-63.

13. Xiang Y et al. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16:1741-4.

14. Alvarez J, Hunt M. J Trauma Stress. 2005 Oct 18(5);18:497-505.

15. Cukor J et al. Depress Anxiety. 2011 Mar;28(3):210-7.

16. Horton R. Lancet. 2020 Feb;395(10222):400.

17. Xiang Y-T et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 4;7:228-9.

18. World Health Organization. “Rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for coronavirus (COVID-19).” Interim Guidance. 2020 Mar.

19. Brooks S et al. Lancet 2020 Mar 14;395:912-20.

Dr. Doppalapudi is affiliated with Griffin Memorial Hospital in Norman, Okla. Dr. Lippmann is emeritus professor of psychiatry and also in family medicine at the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Doppalapudi and Dr. Lippmann disclosed no conflicts of interest.

An additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the COVID-19 pandemic, projections from a new national report released today suggest.

The number of “deaths of despair” could be even higher if the country fails to take bold action to address the mental health toll of unemployment, isolation, and uncertainty, according to the report from the Well Being Trust (WBT) and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care.

“If nothing happens and nothing improves – ie, the worst-case scenario – we could be looking at an additional 150,000 people who died who didn’t have to,” Benjamin Miller, PsyD, WBT chief strategy officer, told Medscape Medical News.

“We can prevent these deaths. We know how and have a bevy of evidence-based solutions. We lack the resources to really stand this up in a way that can most positively impact communities,” Miller added.

Slow recovery, quick recovery scenarios

For the analysis, Miller and colleagues combined information on the number of deaths from suicide, alcohol, and drugs from 2018 as a baseline (n = 181,686). They projected levels of unemployment from 2020 to 2029 and then used economic modeling to estimate the additional annual number of deaths.

Across nine different scenarios, the number of additional deaths of despair range from 27,644 (quick recovery, smallest impact of unemployment on suicide, alcohol-, and drug-related deaths) to 154,037 (slow recovery, greatest impact of unemployment on these deaths), with 75,000 being the most likely.

The report offers several policy solutions to prevent a surge in “avoidable” deaths. They include finding ways to ameliorate the effects of unemployment and provide meaningful work to those who are out of work. Making access to care easier and fully integrating mental health and addiction care into primary and clinical care as well as community settings are also essential.

These solutions should also serve to prevent drug and alcohol misuse and suicide in normal times, the researchers say.

Miller believes it’s time for the federal government to fully support a framework of excellence in mental health and well-being and to invest in mental health now.

“In the short term, we need at least $48 billion to keep the lights on in the current system,” he said.

“This is because 92.6% of mental health organizations have had to reduce their operations in some capacity, 61.8% have had to completely close at least one program, and 31.0% have had to turn away patients. This scenario is not optimal for people who will need a system to help them right now during a crisis,” he added.

In the long term, $150 billion is needed for a “massive structural redesign” of the US mental health system, Miller said.

“This means bringing mental health fully into all facets of our healthcare system, of our community. It will take robust investment in creating new mechanisms for care ― those that are team-based, create a new type of workforce to deliver that care, and one that is seamless across clinical and community settings,” said Miller.

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

An additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the COVID-19 pandemic, projections from a new national report released today suggest.

The number of “deaths of despair” could be even higher if the country fails to take bold action to address the mental health toll of unemployment, isolation, and uncertainty, according to the report from the Well Being Trust (WBT) and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care.

“If nothing happens and nothing improves – ie, the worst-case scenario – we could be looking at an additional 150,000 people who died who didn’t have to,” Benjamin Miller, PsyD, WBT chief strategy officer, told Medscape Medical News.

“We can prevent these deaths. We know how and have a bevy of evidence-based solutions. We lack the resources to really stand this up in a way that can most positively impact communities,” Miller added.

Slow recovery, quick recovery scenarios

For the analysis, Miller and colleagues combined information on the number of deaths from suicide, alcohol, and drugs from 2018 as a baseline (n = 181,686). They projected levels of unemployment from 2020 to 2029 and then used economic modeling to estimate the additional annual number of deaths.

Across nine different scenarios, the number of additional deaths of despair range from 27,644 (quick recovery, smallest impact of unemployment on suicide, alcohol-, and drug-related deaths) to 154,037 (slow recovery, greatest impact of unemployment on these deaths), with 75,000 being the most likely.

The report offers several policy solutions to prevent a surge in “avoidable” deaths. They include finding ways to ameliorate the effects of unemployment and provide meaningful work to those who are out of work. Making access to care easier and fully integrating mental health and addiction care into primary and clinical care as well as community settings are also essential.

These solutions should also serve to prevent drug and alcohol misuse and suicide in normal times, the researchers say.

Miller believes it’s time for the federal government to fully support a framework of excellence in mental health and well-being and to invest in mental health now.

“In the short term, we need at least $48 billion to keep the lights on in the current system,” he said.

“This is because 92.6% of mental health organizations have had to reduce their operations in some capacity, 61.8% have had to completely close at least one program, and 31.0% have had to turn away patients. This scenario is not optimal for people who will need a system to help them right now during a crisis,” he added.

In the long term, $150 billion is needed for a “massive structural redesign” of the US mental health system, Miller said.

“This means bringing mental health fully into all facets of our healthcare system, of our community. It will take robust investment in creating new mechanisms for care ― those that are team-based, create a new type of workforce to deliver that care, and one that is seamless across clinical and community settings,” said Miller.

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

An additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the COVID-19 pandemic, projections from a new national report released today suggest.

The number of “deaths of despair” could be even higher if the country fails to take bold action to address the mental health toll of unemployment, isolation, and uncertainty, according to the report from the Well Being Trust (WBT) and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care.

“If nothing happens and nothing improves – ie, the worst-case scenario – we could be looking at an additional 150,000 people who died who didn’t have to,” Benjamin Miller, PsyD, WBT chief strategy officer, told Medscape Medical News.

“We can prevent these deaths. We know how and have a bevy of evidence-based solutions. We lack the resources to really stand this up in a way that can most positively impact communities,” Miller added.

Slow recovery, quick recovery scenarios

For the analysis, Miller and colleagues combined information on the number of deaths from suicide, alcohol, and drugs from 2018 as a baseline (n = 181,686). They projected levels of unemployment from 2020 to 2029 and then used economic modeling to estimate the additional annual number of deaths.

Across nine different scenarios, the number of additional deaths of despair range from 27,644 (quick recovery, smallest impact of unemployment on suicide, alcohol-, and drug-related deaths) to 154,037 (slow recovery, greatest impact of unemployment on these deaths), with 75,000 being the most likely.

The report offers several policy solutions to prevent a surge in “avoidable” deaths. They include finding ways to ameliorate the effects of unemployment and provide meaningful work to those who are out of work. Making access to care easier and fully integrating mental health and addiction care into primary and clinical care as well as community settings are also essential.

These solutions should also serve to prevent drug and alcohol misuse and suicide in normal times, the researchers say.

Miller believes it’s time for the federal government to fully support a framework of excellence in mental health and well-being and to invest in mental health now.

“In the short term, we need at least $48 billion to keep the lights on in the current system,” he said.

“This is because 92.6% of mental health organizations have had to reduce their operations in some capacity, 61.8% have had to completely close at least one program, and 31.0% have had to turn away patients. This scenario is not optimal for people who will need a system to help them right now during a crisis,” he added.

In the long term, $150 billion is needed for a “massive structural redesign” of the US mental health system, Miller said.

“This means bringing mental health fully into all facets of our healthcare system, of our community. It will take robust investment in creating new mechanisms for care ― those that are team-based, create a new type of workforce to deliver that care, and one that is seamless across clinical and community settings,” said Miller.

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

Suicide prevention is a high priority for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and will be one specific area of focus in the federal agency’s 5-year strategic plan that’s set to be released soon, according to Director Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD.

The agency is updating its strategic plan to guide research efforts and priorities over the next 5 years, Dr. Gordon said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

That strategic plan, which will cover a broader range of priorities, is scheduled to be published “within the next few weeks,” Dr. Gordon said.

Closing the research gap in suicide prevention is a high priority for NIMH, Dr. Gordon said, especially in light of the age-adjusted U.S. suicide rates that have been increasing consistently in men and women for the past 2 decades, as data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

“And although we must acknowledge we don’t quite know why, there is lots of speculation and a little bit of data, but not really conclusive stuff,” he said. “We also recognize that, in addition to trying to understand why, we need to try interventions that will reverse this increase.”

Identifying those at risk for suicide is a key focus of research, according to Dr. Gordon, who highlighted results of the ED-SAFE study, describing it as a “mainstay” of approaches to reducing risk through intervention.

In that recent study, an emergency department (ED)-based suicide prevention intervention cut total suicide attempts by 30%, compared with treatment as usual (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;74[6]:563-70). That intervention included universal suicide risk screening plus secondary screening by the physician in the ED, discharge resources, and post-ED telephone calls intended to reduce suicide risk.

The ED-SAFE study is an example of taking the lessons learned in psychiatry and bringing them to a “broader swath” of individuals who might be at risk, said Dr. Gordon, a research psychiatrist who was a faculty member at Columbia University, New York, prior to being appointed director of NIMH.

“Of course, we’d like to do this not just in emergency rooms, but in primary care offices as well,” said Dr. Gordon, who noted that ongoing studies are aimed at demonstrating similar results in primary care patient populations, including adults and children.

Beyond this ask-and-you-will-find approach, there are “more modern” methods that involve applying predictive modeling and analytics to large data sets, identifying individuals who might not otherwise be suspected as being at risk and getting them into treatment, according to the director.

In one recent report, investigators said a risk prediction method using a machine learning approach on 3.7 million patients across five U.S. health systems was able to detect 38% of suicide attempts a mean of 2.1 years in advance (JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 25;3[3]:3201262).

Machine learning might be able to detect the risk of suicidal behavior in unselected patients, based on these findings and might facilitate development of clinical decision support tools for risk reduction, the investigators said.

“We’re now studying how to implement these algorithms in real-world practice,” Dr. Gordon said.

Beyond identification, new interventions are needed for suicide reduction, he added, calling ketamine infusion “one of the most promising” recent developments that may help reduce suicidal ideation.

“You can take someone with high levels of suicidal ideation and treat them with ketamine, and within an hour that ideation is gone,” he said. “So the question is, can we use this in real-world practice to reduce suicide risk?”

The NIMH focus on suicide prevention will intensify the agency’s focus on recent initiatives in detecting and preventing suicide behavior and ideation in the juvenile justice system, applied research toward the goal of zero-suicide health care systems, and looking at the safety and feasibility of rapid-acting interventions for severe suicide risk, among others, according to Dr. Gordon, who became director of the agency in 2016.

“We have a number of initiatives aimed at taking what we’ve learned over the past few years, and helping that have a significant public health impact,” Dr. Gordon said.

Dr. Gordon reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Gordon JA. APA 2020, Abstract.

Suicide prevention is a high priority for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and will be one specific area of focus in the federal agency’s 5-year strategic plan that’s set to be released soon, according to Director Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD.

The agency is updating its strategic plan to guide research efforts and priorities over the next 5 years, Dr. Gordon said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

That strategic plan, which will cover a broader range of priorities, is scheduled to be published “within the next few weeks,” Dr. Gordon said.

Closing the research gap in suicide prevention is a high priority for NIMH, Dr. Gordon said, especially in light of the age-adjusted U.S. suicide rates that have been increasing consistently in men and women for the past 2 decades, as data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

“And although we must acknowledge we don’t quite know why, there is lots of speculation and a little bit of data, but not really conclusive stuff,” he said. “We also recognize that, in addition to trying to understand why, we need to try interventions that will reverse this increase.”

Identifying those at risk for suicide is a key focus of research, according to Dr. Gordon, who highlighted results of the ED-SAFE study, describing it as a “mainstay” of approaches to reducing risk through intervention.

In that recent study, an emergency department (ED)-based suicide prevention intervention cut total suicide attempts by 30%, compared with treatment as usual (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;74[6]:563-70). That intervention included universal suicide risk screening plus secondary screening by the physician in the ED, discharge resources, and post-ED telephone calls intended to reduce suicide risk.

The ED-SAFE study is an example of taking the lessons learned in psychiatry and bringing them to a “broader swath” of individuals who might be at risk, said Dr. Gordon, a research psychiatrist who was a faculty member at Columbia University, New York, prior to being appointed director of NIMH.

“Of course, we’d like to do this not just in emergency rooms, but in primary care offices as well,” said Dr. Gordon, who noted that ongoing studies are aimed at demonstrating similar results in primary care patient populations, including adults and children.

Beyond this ask-and-you-will-find approach, there are “more modern” methods that involve applying predictive modeling and analytics to large data sets, identifying individuals who might not otherwise be suspected as being at risk and getting them into treatment, according to the director.

In one recent report, investigators said a risk prediction method using a machine learning approach on 3.7 million patients across five U.S. health systems was able to detect 38% of suicide attempts a mean of 2.1 years in advance (JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 25;3[3]:3201262).

Machine learning might be able to detect the risk of suicidal behavior in unselected patients, based on these findings and might facilitate development of clinical decision support tools for risk reduction, the investigators said.

“We’re now studying how to implement these algorithms in real-world practice,” Dr. Gordon said.

Beyond identification, new interventions are needed for suicide reduction, he added, calling ketamine infusion “one of the most promising” recent developments that may help reduce suicidal ideation.

“You can take someone with high levels of suicidal ideation and treat them with ketamine, and within an hour that ideation is gone,” he said. “So the question is, can we use this in real-world practice to reduce suicide risk?”

The NIMH focus on suicide prevention will intensify the agency’s focus on recent initiatives in detecting and preventing suicide behavior and ideation in the juvenile justice system, applied research toward the goal of zero-suicide health care systems, and looking at the safety and feasibility of rapid-acting interventions for severe suicide risk, among others, according to Dr. Gordon, who became director of the agency in 2016.

“We have a number of initiatives aimed at taking what we’ve learned over the past few years, and helping that have a significant public health impact,” Dr. Gordon said.

Dr. Gordon reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Gordon JA. APA 2020, Abstract.

Suicide prevention is a high priority for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and will be one specific area of focus in the federal agency’s 5-year strategic plan that’s set to be released soon, according to Director Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD.

The agency is updating its strategic plan to guide research efforts and priorities over the next 5 years, Dr. Gordon said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

That strategic plan, which will cover a broader range of priorities, is scheduled to be published “within the next few weeks,” Dr. Gordon said.

Closing the research gap in suicide prevention is a high priority for NIMH, Dr. Gordon said, especially in light of the age-adjusted U.S. suicide rates that have been increasing consistently in men and women for the past 2 decades, as data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

“And although we must acknowledge we don’t quite know why, there is lots of speculation and a little bit of data, but not really conclusive stuff,” he said. “We also recognize that, in addition to trying to understand why, we need to try interventions that will reverse this increase.”

Identifying those at risk for suicide is a key focus of research, according to Dr. Gordon, who highlighted results of the ED-SAFE study, describing it as a “mainstay” of approaches to reducing risk through intervention.

In that recent study, an emergency department (ED)-based suicide prevention intervention cut total suicide attempts by 30%, compared with treatment as usual (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;74[6]:563-70). That intervention included universal suicide risk screening plus secondary screening by the physician in the ED, discharge resources, and post-ED telephone calls intended to reduce suicide risk.

The ED-SAFE study is an example of taking the lessons learned in psychiatry and bringing them to a “broader swath” of individuals who might be at risk, said Dr. Gordon, a research psychiatrist who was a faculty member at Columbia University, New York, prior to being appointed director of NIMH.

“Of course, we’d like to do this not just in emergency rooms, but in primary care offices as well,” said Dr. Gordon, who noted that ongoing studies are aimed at demonstrating similar results in primary care patient populations, including adults and children.

Beyond this ask-and-you-will-find approach, there are “more modern” methods that involve applying predictive modeling and analytics to large data sets, identifying individuals who might not otherwise be suspected as being at risk and getting them into treatment, according to the director.

In one recent report, investigators said a risk prediction method using a machine learning approach on 3.7 million patients across five U.S. health systems was able to detect 38% of suicide attempts a mean of 2.1 years in advance (JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 25;3[3]:3201262).

Machine learning might be able to detect the risk of suicidal behavior in unselected patients, based on these findings and might facilitate development of clinical decision support tools for risk reduction, the investigators said.

“We’re now studying how to implement these algorithms in real-world practice,” Dr. Gordon said.

Beyond identification, new interventions are needed for suicide reduction, he added, calling ketamine infusion “one of the most promising” recent developments that may help reduce suicidal ideation.

“You can take someone with high levels of suicidal ideation and treat them with ketamine, and within an hour that ideation is gone,” he said. “So the question is, can we use this in real-world practice to reduce suicide risk?”

The NIMH focus on suicide prevention will intensify the agency’s focus on recent initiatives in detecting and preventing suicide behavior and ideation in the juvenile justice system, applied research toward the goal of zero-suicide health care systems, and looking at the safety and feasibility of rapid-acting interventions for severe suicide risk, among others, according to Dr. Gordon, who became director of the agency in 2016.

“We have a number of initiatives aimed at taking what we’ve learned over the past few years, and helping that have a significant public health impact,” Dr. Gordon said.

Dr. Gordon reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Gordon JA. APA 2020, Abstract.

Most married couples vowed to stay with their partners during sickness and health, but none of us vowed to remain trapped with our loved ones behind the same four walls, all day, every day, for an unknown period of time. We didn’t sign up for this! Some romantics may be titillated by the prospect, while more independent partners may panic at the mere thought of spending all day and night with their loved ones.

AbleStock.com

Because of the swift implementation of the lifestyle-altering restrictions, couples did not have ample time to mentally and physically prepare. A lack of preparation and loss of control heightens our emotions. It can make couples more susceptible to engage in unhealthy styles of communication and destructive behaviors that are harmful to their relationships.

There are psychological reasons that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” Distance from your partner is not just a clever way to make your partner appreciate and desire you more. It is human nature to habituate to what is part of your daily life. For instance, when your partner is away from you while on a work trip, you may find the first night or two alone relaxing; but by day 3, you begin to miss your partner’s hugs and kisses, smell, and touch. And after many days apart, you may even miss the incessant nagging that secretly motivates you. Physical distance from our partners essentially gives us the ability to long for and appreciate each other. Our brains are wired to pay more attention to things that are novel and exciting and less interested in what is in our everyday lives.

Separation gives us the ability to miss our partners, while quarantine does the complete opposite.

To avoid contemplating how to murder one’s spouse before quarantine ends, partners can strengthen their relationships by using the strategies I’ve outlined below, which are loosely based on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These strategies can be useful for anyone – providers and patients alike – going through these struggles.

Dialectical behavior therapy was developed by psychologist Marsha Linehan PhD, to help regulate emotions for people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. These skills help to identify thoughts and feelings, to accept one’s inner emotional world and outward behaviors. The idea is that, once you can recognize and accept, then change is possible. The “dialectic” in dialectical behavior therapy implies that one is attempting to find a balance between acceptance and change. All of us can benefit from these skills, especially emotionally volatile couples who are trapped together in quarantine.
 

Radically accept what is uncertain in your lives

Radical acceptance is a practice used in DBT in situations that are out of our control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Radically accept that you and your partner are trapped in quarantine without attempting to place blame on our government, your spouse, your boss, and even yourself. Radical acceptance is exactly what the name implies. Accept your current situation for what it is and not what you hoped it to be.

Accept the unknown and unanswered questions such as when will this quarantine end? Will there be a summer camp? Will I get back to my office this summer? Will my children even return to school in the fall? The acceptance of what is out of your control will ultimately decrease your mental time spent worrying and obsessing about the uncertainties of your post-quarantine life and instead provide you more time to be present with your spouse.

Remain mindful during all communication with your spouse. To stay in the moment, you need to be aware of your bodily reactions to distress and notice when your heart rate increases, breathing becomes more shallow, stomach muscles tighten, and when your thoughts become more negative. Mindfulness skills enable us to use physiological changes in our body to become aware of our emotions. You can use your partner’s nonverbal body language and tone of voice to gauge that person’s emotional reactivity.

The practice of mindfulness leads to an increased emotional intelligence. The goal is to have enough self-awareness and emotional understanding of your partner and enough empathy to know when a conversation is becoming too emotionally charged and to let it go and back off. Mindfulness is not nagging your partner to remember to change the heating unit filters with a reminder of what happened years ago when this wasn’t done promptly – without first checking in to make sure your partner is emotionally ready for this type of conversation.

When we have strong emotions, we are using the more primitive parts of our brain that induce a fight or flight reaction. These emotional reactions overshadow the more advanced prefrontal region of our brain that stores our rational thoughts and reasoning skills, a concept identified by psychologist Daniel Goleman as “emotional hijacking.”
 

Use distress tolerance skills to deal with negative emotions

Distress tolerance is an individual’s ability to manage feelings in response to stress. Distress tolerance skills are aimed at helping one manage intense emotions without worsening a situation by engaging in behaviors that are destructive and may exacerbate the problem. The goal is to tolerate the stress while with your partner and not respond negatively or in a way that is harmful to the integrity of your relationship.

To prioritize your relationship, this may mean that you choose not to react negatively when your partner makes a passive-aggressive comment on how you spent your day during quarantine since you still have a pile of laundry on your bedroom floor and overflowing dishes in the kitchen sink. A high level of distress tolerance will enable you to not overreact or withdraw from your spouse when flooded with emotions of anger or sadness.

Distraction techniques are a type of distress tolerance skill. You can engage in activities that keep you distracted and require your full attention. When things get heated between you and your spouse during quarantine, try to obtain some distance from each other to cool down and engage in an activity that involves your full concentration.

Many of us have been surprised by our hidden talents that were discovered during the quarantine. Use the time away from your partner to distract yourself with your new passion for writing, baking, organizing, and even your newfound love of balloon artistry. Do an activity that engages your mind and provides you the necessary physical and mental time away from your partner to deescalate. You can always revisit the initial cause of the conflict when both you and your partner are not emotionally charged. You can also distract yourself with self-soothing tactics such as taking a warm bath or a reading good book. Perhaps distract yourself by giving back to others and spending time planning a drive-by surprise party for your sister’s birthday next month. It can be helpful to distract yourself by comparing yourself to others less fortunate than you or a time in your life when you and your partner were struggling much worse than now, to provide perspective. The goal is not to add to your distress but instead, provide yourself a sense of perspective.
 

Use interpersonal effectiveness skills to establish a healthy relationship

Be gentle in all your communications with your partner, think about your spouse’s perspective, show empathy and interest in what your partner has to say by your verbal communication or body language, such as maintaining eye contact, and offer recognitional cues, such as “uh-huh” and “oh, really.” Avoid communication that is at all invalidating. Never start a sentence with “YOU” while having heated conversations with your spouse; instead, use “I feel” statements. This type of communication avoids the blame game that gets many couples into trouble.

Instead, communicate how you feel while not necessarily blaming your spouse but rather expressing your emotions. This will ultimately lead to less defensive communication from your partner. Remember that not all communication is for the sole purpose of communicating. Much of the time, communication is used as an attempt for one partner to connect with the other partner. Couples may say that they have difficulty with communication when it is not the communication that is the issue but instead the underlying disconnect of the couple.

This disconnect usually manifests while couples are communicating, and therefore, can be misconstrued as solely a communication issue by the couple. When your partner asks you to stop staring at your phone during dinner, it is not necessarily that your spouse is attempting to control you or wants to engage in some deep conversation, but more likely a bid to try to connect with you. Your partner is attempting to tell you that he or she feels disconnected, misses you, and wants to reconnect.
 

Provide validation and acceptance to your partner

Focus on your partner’s strengths and accept the weaknesses. Accept that your partner is scattered, disorganized, and takes at least 20 minutes to find the phone and keys every morning. Remember that during your courtship days, you found your partner’s flighty attributes to be endearing. Do the same for your strengths and weaknesses.

Accept that the pandemic is unpredictable and that you may need to strengthen your ability to be flexible and more adaptable. This will ultimately lead to feeling less disappointment by your partner and more accepting of shortcomings. Acceptance of your imperfections will improve your sense of worth and confidence and lessen negative emotions, such as guilt, regret, and shame.

Accept the fact that, as similar as we all are, we use different methods to recharge ourselves. Remember that you may require time with others, including your spouse, to feel invigorated. In contrast, your spouse needs alone time without distractions to reboot mentally and prepare for the following day. In the pre-pandemic world, if there were a mismatch in what a couple needed to feel rejuvenated, they could independently compensate and search for fulfillment outside of the home. Before stay-at-home orders were rolled out throughout the country, spouses had ample opportunities to spend time away from their partners at work, dinner with friends, or while squeezing in a 7 p.m. yoga sculpt class – barely getting home in time to kiss our children goodnight – with a few minutes to spare to engage in mundane conversation with our partners before our nighttime routine of TV commenced. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has made it very hard for couples to carve out that time for compensatory activities outside of the home.

Remember that you are a team

Remind yourself of the reason why you initially fell in love with your partner. Teammates do not keep score or compete with one another. They support each other when one player is not feeling well, and they make sacrifices for the betterment of the team.

Your marriage vows included “through sickness and health” and now should include “through quarantine.”

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

Most married couples vowed to stay with their partners during sickness and health, but none of us vowed to remain trapped with our loved ones behind the same four walls, all day, every day, for an unknown period of time. We didn’t sign up for this! Some romantics may be titillated by the prospect, while more independent partners may panic at the mere thought of spending all day and night with their loved ones.

AbleStock.com

Because of the swift implementation of the lifestyle-altering restrictions, couples did not have ample time to mentally and physically prepare. A lack of preparation and loss of control heightens our emotions. It can make couples more susceptible to engage in unhealthy styles of communication and destructive behaviors that are harmful to their relationships.

There are psychological reasons that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” Distance from your partner is not just a clever way to make your partner appreciate and desire you more. It is human nature to habituate to what is part of your daily life. For instance, when your partner is away from you while on a work trip, you may find the first night or two alone relaxing; but by day 3, you begin to miss your partner’s hugs and kisses, smell, and touch. And after many days apart, you may even miss the incessant nagging that secretly motivates you. Physical distance from our partners essentially gives us the ability to long for and appreciate each other. Our brains are wired to pay more attention to things that are novel and exciting and less interested in what is in our everyday lives.

Separation gives us the ability to miss our partners, while quarantine does the complete opposite.

To avoid contemplating how to murder one’s spouse before quarantine ends, partners can strengthen their relationships by using the strategies I’ve outlined below, which are loosely based on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These strategies can be useful for anyone – providers and patients alike – going through these struggles.

Dialectical behavior therapy was developed by psychologist Marsha Linehan PhD, to help regulate emotions for people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. These skills help to identify thoughts and feelings, to accept one’s inner emotional world and outward behaviors. The idea is that, once you can recognize and accept, then change is possible. The “dialectic” in dialectical behavior therapy implies that one is attempting to find a balance between acceptance and change. All of us can benefit from these skills, especially emotionally volatile couples who are trapped together in quarantine.
 

Radically accept what is uncertain in your lives

Radical acceptance is a practice used in DBT in situations that are out of our control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Radically accept that you and your partner are trapped in quarantine without attempting to place blame on our government, your spouse, your boss, and even yourself. Radical acceptance is exactly what the name implies. Accept your current situation for what it is and not what you hoped it to be.

Accept the unknown and unanswered questions such as when will this quarantine end? Will there be a summer camp? Will I get back to my office this summer? Will my children even return to school in the fall? The acceptance of what is out of your control will ultimately decrease your mental time spent worrying and obsessing about the uncertainties of your post-quarantine life and instead provide you more time to be present with your spouse.

Remain mindful during all communication with your spouse. To stay in the moment, you need to be aware of your bodily reactions to distress and notice when your heart rate increases, breathing becomes more shallow, stomach muscles tighten, and when your thoughts become more negative. Mindfulness skills enable us to use physiological changes in our body to become aware of our emotions. You can use your partner’s nonverbal body language and tone of voice to gauge that person’s emotional reactivity.

The practice of mindfulness leads to an increased emotional intelligence. The goal is to have enough self-awareness and emotional understanding of your partner and enough empathy to know when a conversation is becoming too emotionally charged and to let it go and back off. Mindfulness is not nagging your partner to remember to change the heating unit filters with a reminder of what happened years ago when this wasn’t done promptly – without first checking in to make sure your partner is emotionally ready for this type of conversation.

When we have strong emotions, we are using the more primitive parts of our brain that induce a fight or flight reaction. These emotional reactions overshadow the more advanced prefrontal region of our brain that stores our rational thoughts and reasoning skills, a concept identified by psychologist Daniel Goleman as “emotional hijacking.”
 

Use distress tolerance skills to deal with negative emotions

Distress tolerance is an individual’s ability to manage feelings in response to stress. Distress tolerance skills are aimed at helping one manage intense emotions without worsening a situation by engaging in behaviors that are destructive and may exacerbate the problem. The goal is to tolerate the stress while with your partner and not respond negatively or in a way that is harmful to the integrity of your relationship.

To prioritize your relationship, this may mean that you choose not to react negatively when your partner makes a passive-aggressive comment on how you spent your day during quarantine since you still have a pile of laundry on your bedroom floor and overflowing dishes in the kitchen sink. A high level of distress tolerance will enable you to not overreact or withdraw from your spouse when flooded with emotions of anger or sadness.

Distraction techniques are a type of distress tolerance skill. You can engage in activities that keep you distracted and require your full attention. When things get heated between you and your spouse during quarantine, try to obtain some distance from each other to cool down and engage in an activity that involves your full concentration.

Many of us have been surprised by our hidden talents that were discovered during the quarantine. Use the time away from your partner to distract yourself with your new passion for writing, baking, organizing, and even your newfound love of balloon artistry. Do an activity that engages your mind and provides you the necessary physical and mental time away from your partner to deescalate. You can always revisit the initial cause of the conflict when both you and your partner are not emotionally charged. You can also distract yourself with self-soothing tactics such as taking a warm bath or a reading good book. Perhaps distract yourself by giving back to others and spending time planning a drive-by surprise party for your sister’s birthday next month. It can be helpful to distract yourself by comparing yourself to others less fortunate than you or a time in your life when you and your partner were struggling much worse than now, to provide perspective. The goal is not to add to your distress but instead, provide yourself a sense of perspective.
 

Use interpersonal effectiveness skills to establish a healthy relationship

Be gentle in all your communications with your partner, think about your spouse’s perspective, show empathy and interest in what your partner has to say by your verbal communication or body language, such as maintaining eye contact, and offer recognitional cues, such as “uh-huh” and “oh, really.” Avoid communication that is at all invalidating. Never start a sentence with “YOU” while having heated conversations with your spouse; instead, use “I feel” statements. This type of communication avoids the blame game that gets many couples into trouble.

Instead, communicate how you feel while not necessarily blaming your spouse but rather expressing your emotions. This will ultimately lead to less defensive communication from your partner. Remember that not all communication is for the sole purpose of communicating. Much of the time, communication is used as an attempt for one partner to connect with the other partner. Couples may say that they have difficulty with communication when it is not the communication that is the issue but instead the underlying disconnect of the couple.

This disconnect usually manifests while couples are communicating, and therefore, can be misconstrued as solely a communication issue by the couple. When your partner asks you to stop staring at your phone during dinner, it is not necessarily that your spouse is attempting to control you or wants to engage in some deep conversation, but more likely a bid to try to connect with you. Your partner is attempting to tell you that he or she feels disconnected, misses you, and wants to reconnect.
 

Provide validation and acceptance to your partner

Focus on your partner’s strengths and accept the weaknesses. Accept that your partner is scattered, disorganized, and takes at least 20 minutes to find the phone and keys every morning. Remember that during your courtship days, you found your partner’s flighty attributes to be endearing. Do the same for your strengths and weaknesses.

Accept that the pandemic is unpredictable and that you may need to strengthen your ability to be flexible and more adaptable. This will ultimately lead to feeling less disappointment by your partner and more accepting of shortcomings. Acceptance of your imperfections will improve your sense of worth and confidence and lessen negative emotions, such as guilt, regret, and shame.

Accept the fact that, as similar as we all are, we use different methods to recharge ourselves. Remember that you may require time with others, including your spouse, to feel invigorated. In contrast, your spouse needs alone time without distractions to reboot mentally and prepare for the following day. In the pre-pandemic world, if there were a mismatch in what a couple needed to feel rejuvenated, they could independently compensate and search for fulfillment outside of the home. Before stay-at-home orders were rolled out throughout the country, spouses had ample opportunities to spend time away from their partners at work, dinner with friends, or while squeezing in a 7 p.m. yoga sculpt class – barely getting home in time to kiss our children goodnight – with a few minutes to spare to engage in mundane conversation with our partners before our nighttime routine of TV commenced. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has made it very hard for couples to carve out that time for compensatory activities outside of the home.

Remember that you are a team

Remind yourself of the reason why you initially fell in love with your partner. Teammates do not keep score or compete with one another. They support each other when one player is not feeling well, and they make sacrifices for the betterment of the team.

Your marriage vows included “through sickness and health” and now should include “through quarantine.”

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

Most married couples vowed to stay with their partners during sickness and health, but none of us vowed to remain trapped with our loved ones behind the same four walls, all day, every day, for an unknown period of time. We didn’t sign up for this! Some romantics may be titillated by the prospect, while more independent partners may panic at the mere thought of spending all day and night with their loved ones.

AbleStock.com

Because of the swift implementation of the lifestyle-altering restrictions, couples did not have ample time to mentally and physically prepare. A lack of preparation and loss of control heightens our emotions. It can make couples more susceptible to engage in unhealthy styles of communication and destructive behaviors that are harmful to their relationships.

There are psychological reasons that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” Distance from your partner is not just a clever way to make your partner appreciate and desire you more. It is human nature to habituate to what is part of your daily life. For instance, when your partner is away from you while on a work trip, you may find the first night or two alone relaxing; but by day 3, you begin to miss your partner’s hugs and kisses, smell, and touch. And after many days apart, you may even miss the incessant nagging that secretly motivates you. Physical distance from our partners essentially gives us the ability to long for and appreciate each other. Our brains are wired to pay more attention to things that are novel and exciting and less interested in what is in our everyday lives.

Separation gives us the ability to miss our partners, while quarantine does the complete opposite.

To avoid contemplating how to murder one’s spouse before quarantine ends, partners can strengthen their relationships by using the strategies I’ve outlined below, which are loosely based on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These strategies can be useful for anyone – providers and patients alike – going through these struggles.

Dialectical behavior therapy was developed by psychologist Marsha Linehan PhD, to help regulate emotions for people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. These skills help to identify thoughts and feelings, to accept one’s inner emotional world and outward behaviors. The idea is that, once you can recognize and accept, then change is possible. The “dialectic” in dialectical behavior therapy implies that one is attempting to find a balance between acceptance and change. All of us can benefit from these skills, especially emotionally volatile couples who are trapped together in quarantine.
 

Radically accept what is uncertain in your lives

Radical acceptance is a practice used in DBT in situations that are out of our control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Radically accept that you and your partner are trapped in quarantine without attempting to place blame on our government, your spouse, your boss, and even yourself. Radical acceptance is exactly what the name implies. Accept your current situation for what it is and not what you hoped it to be.

Accept the unknown and unanswered questions such as when will this quarantine end? Will there be a summer camp? Will I get back to my office this summer? Will my children even return to school in the fall? The acceptance of what is out of your control will ultimately decrease your mental time spent worrying and obsessing about the uncertainties of your post-quarantine life and instead provide you more time to be present with your spouse.

Remain mindful during all communication with your spouse. To stay in the moment, you need to be aware of your bodily reactions to distress and notice when your heart rate increases, breathing becomes more shallow, stomach muscles tighten, and when your thoughts become more negative. Mindfulness skills enable us to use physiological changes in our body to become aware of our emotions. You can use your partner’s nonverbal body language and tone of voice to gauge that person’s emotional reactivity.

The practice of mindfulness leads to an increased emotional intelligence. The goal is to have enough self-awareness and emotional understanding of your partner and enough empathy to know when a conversation is becoming too emotionally charged and to let it go and back off. Mindfulness is not nagging your partner to remember to change the heating unit filters with a reminder of what happened years ago when this wasn’t done promptly – without first checking in to make sure your partner is emotionally ready for this type of conversation.

When we have strong emotions, we are using the more primitive parts of our brain that induce a fight or flight reaction. These emotional reactions overshadow the more advanced prefrontal region of our brain that stores our rational thoughts and reasoning skills, a concept identified by psychologist Daniel Goleman as “emotional hijacking.”
 

Use distress tolerance skills to deal with negative emotions

Distress tolerance is an individual’s ability to manage feelings in response to stress. Distress tolerance skills are aimed at helping one manage intense emotions without worsening a situation by engaging in behaviors that are destructive and may exacerbate the problem. The goal is to tolerate the stress while with your partner and not respond negatively or in a way that is harmful to the integrity of your relationship.

To prioritize your relationship, this may mean that you choose not to react negatively when your partner makes a passive-aggressive comment on how you spent your day during quarantine since you still have a pile of laundry on your bedroom floor and overflowing dishes in the kitchen sink. A high level of distress tolerance will enable you to not overreact or withdraw from your spouse when flooded with emotions of anger or sadness.

Distraction techniques are a type of distress tolerance skill. You can engage in activities that keep you distracted and require your full attention. When things get heated between you and your spouse during quarantine, try to obtain some distance from each other to cool down and engage in an activity that involves your full concentration.

Many of us have been surprised by our hidden talents that were discovered during the quarantine. Use the time away from your partner to distract yourself with your new passion for writing, baking, organizing, and even your newfound love of balloon artistry. Do an activity that engages your mind and provides you the necessary physical and mental time away from your partner to deescalate. You can always revisit the initial cause of the conflict when both you and your partner are not emotionally charged. You can also distract yourself with self-soothing tactics such as taking a warm bath or a reading good book. Perhaps distract yourself by giving back to others and spending time planning a drive-by surprise party for your sister’s birthday next month. It can be helpful to distract yourself by comparing yourself to others less fortunate than you or a time in your life when you and your partner were struggling much worse than now, to provide perspective. The goal is not to add to your distress but instead, provide yourself a sense of perspective.
 

Use interpersonal effectiveness skills to establish a healthy relationship

Be gentle in all your communications with your partner, think about your spouse’s perspective, show empathy and interest in what your partner has to say by your verbal communication or body language, such as maintaining eye contact, and offer recognitional cues, such as “uh-huh” and “oh, really.” Avoid communication that is at all invalidating. Never start a sentence with “YOU” while having heated conversations with your spouse; instead, use “I feel” statements. This type of communication avoids the blame game that gets many couples into trouble.

Instead, communicate how you feel while not necessarily blaming your spouse but rather expressing your emotions. This will ultimately lead to less defensive communication from your partner. Remember that not all communication is for the sole purpose of communicating. Much of the time, communication is used as an attempt for one partner to connect with the other partner. Couples may say that they have difficulty with communication when it is not the communication that is the issue but instead the underlying disconnect of the couple.

This disconnect usually manifests while couples are communicating, and therefore, can be misconstrued as solely a communication issue by the couple. When your partner asks you to stop staring at your phone during dinner, it is not necessarily that your spouse is attempting to control you or wants to engage in some deep conversation, but more likely a bid to try to connect with you. Your partner is attempting to tell you that he or she feels disconnected, misses you, and wants to reconnect.
 

Provide validation and acceptance to your partner

Focus on your partner’s strengths and accept the weaknesses. Accept that your partner is scattered, disorganized, and takes at least 20 minutes to find the phone and keys every morning. Remember that during your courtship days, you found your partner’s flighty attributes to be endearing. Do the same for your strengths and weaknesses.

Accept that the pandemic is unpredictable and that you may need to strengthen your ability to be flexible and more adaptable. This will ultimately lead to feeling less disappointment by your partner and more accepting of shortcomings. Acceptance of your imperfections will improve your sense of worth and confidence and lessen negative emotions, such as guilt, regret, and shame.

Accept the fact that, as similar as we all are, we use different methods to recharge ourselves. Remember that you may require time with others, including your spouse, to feel invigorated. In contrast, your spouse needs alone time without distractions to reboot mentally and prepare for the following day. In the pre-pandemic world, if there were a mismatch in what a couple needed to feel rejuvenated, they could independently compensate and search for fulfillment outside of the home. Before stay-at-home orders were rolled out throughout the country, spouses had ample opportunities to spend time away from their partners at work, dinner with friends, or while squeezing in a 7 p.m. yoga sculpt class – barely getting home in time to kiss our children goodnight – with a few minutes to spare to engage in mundane conversation with our partners before our nighttime routine of TV commenced. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has made it very hard for couples to carve out that time for compensatory activities outside of the home.

Remember that you are a team

Remind yourself of the reason why you initially fell in love with your partner. Teammates do not keep score or compete with one another. They support each other when one player is not feeling well, and they make sacrifices for the betterment of the team.

Your marriage vows included “through sickness and health” and now should include “through quarantine.”

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.