User login
Integrating mental health and primary care: From dipping a toe to taking a plunge
In case anybody hasn’t noticed, the good ole days are long gone in which pediatric patients with mental health challenges could be simply referred out to be promptly assessed and treated by specialists. Due to a shortage of psychiatrists coupled with large increases in the number of youth presenting with emotional-behavioral difficulties, primary care clinicians are now called upon to fill in much of this gap, with professional organizations like the AAP articulating that .1
To meet this need, new models of integrated or collaborative care between primary care and mental health clinicians have been attempted and tested. While these initiatives have certainly been a welcome advance to many pediatricians, the large numbers of different models and initiatives out there have made for a rather confusing landscape that many busy primary care clinicians have found difficult to navigate.
In an attempt to offer some guidance on the subject, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recently published a clinical update on pediatric collaborative care.2 The report is rich with resources and ideas. One of the main points of the document is that there are different levels of integration that exist. Kind of like the situation with recycling and household waste reduction, it is possible to make valuable improvements at any level of participation, although evidence suggests that more extensive efforts offer the most benefits. At one end of the spectrum, psychiatrists and primary care clinicians maintain separate practices and medical records and occasionally discuss mutual patients. Middle levels may include “colocation” with mental health and primary care professionals sharing a building and/or being part of the same overall system but continuing to work mainly independently. At the highest levels of integration, there is a coordinated and collaborative team that supports an intentional system of care with consistent communication about individual patients and general workflows. These approaches vary in the amount that the following four core areas of integrated care are incorporated.
- Direct service. Many integrated care initiatives heavily rely on the services of an on-site mental health care manager or behavioral health consultant who can provide a number of important functions such as overseeing of the integrated care program, conducting brief therapy with youth and parents, overseeing mental health screenings at the clinic, and providing general mental health promotion guidance.
- Care coordination. Helping patients and families find needed mental health, social services, and educational resources is a key component of integrated care. This task can fall to the practice’s behavioral health consultant, if there is one, but more general care coordinators can also be trained for this important role. The University of Washington’s Center for Advancing Integrated Mental Health Solutions has some published guidelines in this area.3
- Consultation. More advanced integrated care models often have established relationships to specific child psychiatric clinicians who are able to meet with the primary care team to discuss cases and general approaches to various problems. Alternatively, a number of states have implemented what are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs that give primary care clinicians a phone number to an organization (often affiliated with an academic medical center) that can provide quick and even immediate access to a child psychiatry provider for specific questions. Recent federal grants have led to many if not most states now having one of these programs in place, and a website listing these programs and their contact information is available.4
- Education. As mental health training was traditionally not part of a typical pediatrics residency, there have been a number of strategies introduced to help primary care clinicians increase their proficiency and comfort level when it comes to assessing and treating emotional-behavioral problems. These include specific conferences, online programs, and case-based training through mechanisms like the ECHO program.5,6 The AAP itself has released a number of toolkits and training materials related to mental health care that are available.7
The report also outlines some obstacles that continue to get in the way of more extensive integrative care efforts. Chief among them are financial concerns, including how to pay for what often are traditionally nonbillable efforts, particularly those that involve the communication of two expensive health care professionals. Some improvements have been made, however, such as the creation of some relatively new codes (such as 99451 and 99452) that can be submitted by both a primary care and mental health professional when there is a consultation that occurs that does not involve an actual face-to-face encounter.
One area that, in my view, has not received the level of attention it deserves when it comes to integrated care is the degree to which these programs have the potential not only to improve the care of children and adolescents already struggling with mental health challenges but also to serve as a powerful prevention tool to lower the risk of being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in the future and generally to improve levels of well-being. Thus far, however, research on various integrated programs has shown promising results that indicate that overall care for patients with mental health challenges improves.8 Further, when it comes to costs, there is some evidence to suggest that some of the biggest financial gains associated with integrated care has to do with reduced nonpsychiatric medical expenses of patients.9 This, then, suggests that practices that participate in capitated or accountable care organization structures could particularly benefit both clinically and financially from these collaborations.
If your practice has been challenged with the level of mental health care you are now expected to provide and has been contemplating even some small moves toward integrated care, now may the time to put those thoughts into action.
References
1. Foy JM et al. American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. Mental health competencies for pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019;144(5):e20192757.
2. AACAP Committee on Collaborative and Integrated Care and AACAP Committee on Quality Issues. Clinical update: Collaborative mental health care for children and adolescents in pediatric primary care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62(2):91-119.
3. Behavioral health care managers. AIMS Center, University of Washington. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://aims.uw.edu/online-bhcm-modules.
4. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://www.nncpap.org/.
5. Project Echo Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://hsc.unm.edu/echo.
6. Project TEACH. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://projectteachny.org.
7. Earls MF et al. Addressing mental health concerns in pediatrics: A practical resource toolkit for clinicians, 2nd edition. Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021.
8. Asarnow JR et al. Integrated medical-behavioral care compared with usual primary care for child and adolescent behavioral health: A meta analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.
9. Unutzer J et al. Long-term costs effects of collaborative care for late-life depression. Am J Manag Care. 2008.14(2):95-100.
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.
In case anybody hasn’t noticed, the good ole days are long gone in which pediatric patients with mental health challenges could be simply referred out to be promptly assessed and treated by specialists. Due to a shortage of psychiatrists coupled with large increases in the number of youth presenting with emotional-behavioral difficulties, primary care clinicians are now called upon to fill in much of this gap, with professional organizations like the AAP articulating that .1
To meet this need, new models of integrated or collaborative care between primary care and mental health clinicians have been attempted and tested. While these initiatives have certainly been a welcome advance to many pediatricians, the large numbers of different models and initiatives out there have made for a rather confusing landscape that many busy primary care clinicians have found difficult to navigate.
In an attempt to offer some guidance on the subject, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recently published a clinical update on pediatric collaborative care.2 The report is rich with resources and ideas. One of the main points of the document is that there are different levels of integration that exist. Kind of like the situation with recycling and household waste reduction, it is possible to make valuable improvements at any level of participation, although evidence suggests that more extensive efforts offer the most benefits. At one end of the spectrum, psychiatrists and primary care clinicians maintain separate practices and medical records and occasionally discuss mutual patients. Middle levels may include “colocation” with mental health and primary care professionals sharing a building and/or being part of the same overall system but continuing to work mainly independently. At the highest levels of integration, there is a coordinated and collaborative team that supports an intentional system of care with consistent communication about individual patients and general workflows. These approaches vary in the amount that the following four core areas of integrated care are incorporated.
- Direct service. Many integrated care initiatives heavily rely on the services of an on-site mental health care manager or behavioral health consultant who can provide a number of important functions such as overseeing of the integrated care program, conducting brief therapy with youth and parents, overseeing mental health screenings at the clinic, and providing general mental health promotion guidance.
- Care coordination. Helping patients and families find needed mental health, social services, and educational resources is a key component of integrated care. This task can fall to the practice’s behavioral health consultant, if there is one, but more general care coordinators can also be trained for this important role. The University of Washington’s Center for Advancing Integrated Mental Health Solutions has some published guidelines in this area.3
- Consultation. More advanced integrated care models often have established relationships to specific child psychiatric clinicians who are able to meet with the primary care team to discuss cases and general approaches to various problems. Alternatively, a number of states have implemented what are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs that give primary care clinicians a phone number to an organization (often affiliated with an academic medical center) that can provide quick and even immediate access to a child psychiatry provider for specific questions. Recent federal grants have led to many if not most states now having one of these programs in place, and a website listing these programs and their contact information is available.4
- Education. As mental health training was traditionally not part of a typical pediatrics residency, there have been a number of strategies introduced to help primary care clinicians increase their proficiency and comfort level when it comes to assessing and treating emotional-behavioral problems. These include specific conferences, online programs, and case-based training through mechanisms like the ECHO program.5,6 The AAP itself has released a number of toolkits and training materials related to mental health care that are available.7
The report also outlines some obstacles that continue to get in the way of more extensive integrative care efforts. Chief among them are financial concerns, including how to pay for what often are traditionally nonbillable efforts, particularly those that involve the communication of two expensive health care professionals. Some improvements have been made, however, such as the creation of some relatively new codes (such as 99451 and 99452) that can be submitted by both a primary care and mental health professional when there is a consultation that occurs that does not involve an actual face-to-face encounter.
One area that, in my view, has not received the level of attention it deserves when it comes to integrated care is the degree to which these programs have the potential not only to improve the care of children and adolescents already struggling with mental health challenges but also to serve as a powerful prevention tool to lower the risk of being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in the future and generally to improve levels of well-being. Thus far, however, research on various integrated programs has shown promising results that indicate that overall care for patients with mental health challenges improves.8 Further, when it comes to costs, there is some evidence to suggest that some of the biggest financial gains associated with integrated care has to do with reduced nonpsychiatric medical expenses of patients.9 This, then, suggests that practices that participate in capitated or accountable care organization structures could particularly benefit both clinically and financially from these collaborations.
If your practice has been challenged with the level of mental health care you are now expected to provide and has been contemplating even some small moves toward integrated care, now may the time to put those thoughts into action.
References
1. Foy JM et al. American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. Mental health competencies for pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019;144(5):e20192757.
2. AACAP Committee on Collaborative and Integrated Care and AACAP Committee on Quality Issues. Clinical update: Collaborative mental health care for children and adolescents in pediatric primary care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62(2):91-119.
3. Behavioral health care managers. AIMS Center, University of Washington. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://aims.uw.edu/online-bhcm-modules.
4. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://www.nncpap.org/.
5. Project Echo Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://hsc.unm.edu/echo.
6. Project TEACH. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://projectteachny.org.
7. Earls MF et al. Addressing mental health concerns in pediatrics: A practical resource toolkit for clinicians, 2nd edition. Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021.
8. Asarnow JR et al. Integrated medical-behavioral care compared with usual primary care for child and adolescent behavioral health: A meta analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.
9. Unutzer J et al. Long-term costs effects of collaborative care for late-life depression. Am J Manag Care. 2008.14(2):95-100.
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.
In case anybody hasn’t noticed, the good ole days are long gone in which pediatric patients with mental health challenges could be simply referred out to be promptly assessed and treated by specialists. Due to a shortage of psychiatrists coupled with large increases in the number of youth presenting with emotional-behavioral difficulties, primary care clinicians are now called upon to fill in much of this gap, with professional organizations like the AAP articulating that .1
To meet this need, new models of integrated or collaborative care between primary care and mental health clinicians have been attempted and tested. While these initiatives have certainly been a welcome advance to many pediatricians, the large numbers of different models and initiatives out there have made for a rather confusing landscape that many busy primary care clinicians have found difficult to navigate.
In an attempt to offer some guidance on the subject, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recently published a clinical update on pediatric collaborative care.2 The report is rich with resources and ideas. One of the main points of the document is that there are different levels of integration that exist. Kind of like the situation with recycling and household waste reduction, it is possible to make valuable improvements at any level of participation, although evidence suggests that more extensive efforts offer the most benefits. At one end of the spectrum, psychiatrists and primary care clinicians maintain separate practices and medical records and occasionally discuss mutual patients. Middle levels may include “colocation” with mental health and primary care professionals sharing a building and/or being part of the same overall system but continuing to work mainly independently. At the highest levels of integration, there is a coordinated and collaborative team that supports an intentional system of care with consistent communication about individual patients and general workflows. These approaches vary in the amount that the following four core areas of integrated care are incorporated.
- Direct service. Many integrated care initiatives heavily rely on the services of an on-site mental health care manager or behavioral health consultant who can provide a number of important functions such as overseeing of the integrated care program, conducting brief therapy with youth and parents, overseeing mental health screenings at the clinic, and providing general mental health promotion guidance.
- Care coordination. Helping patients and families find needed mental health, social services, and educational resources is a key component of integrated care. This task can fall to the practice’s behavioral health consultant, if there is one, but more general care coordinators can also be trained for this important role. The University of Washington’s Center for Advancing Integrated Mental Health Solutions has some published guidelines in this area.3
- Consultation. More advanced integrated care models often have established relationships to specific child psychiatric clinicians who are able to meet with the primary care team to discuss cases and general approaches to various problems. Alternatively, a number of states have implemented what are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs that give primary care clinicians a phone number to an organization (often affiliated with an academic medical center) that can provide quick and even immediate access to a child psychiatry provider for specific questions. Recent federal grants have led to many if not most states now having one of these programs in place, and a website listing these programs and their contact information is available.4
- Education. As mental health training was traditionally not part of a typical pediatrics residency, there have been a number of strategies introduced to help primary care clinicians increase their proficiency and comfort level when it comes to assessing and treating emotional-behavioral problems. These include specific conferences, online programs, and case-based training through mechanisms like the ECHO program.5,6 The AAP itself has released a number of toolkits and training materials related to mental health care that are available.7
The report also outlines some obstacles that continue to get in the way of more extensive integrative care efforts. Chief among them are financial concerns, including how to pay for what often are traditionally nonbillable efforts, particularly those that involve the communication of two expensive health care professionals. Some improvements have been made, however, such as the creation of some relatively new codes (such as 99451 and 99452) that can be submitted by both a primary care and mental health professional when there is a consultation that occurs that does not involve an actual face-to-face encounter.
One area that, in my view, has not received the level of attention it deserves when it comes to integrated care is the degree to which these programs have the potential not only to improve the care of children and adolescents already struggling with mental health challenges but also to serve as a powerful prevention tool to lower the risk of being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in the future and generally to improve levels of well-being. Thus far, however, research on various integrated programs has shown promising results that indicate that overall care for patients with mental health challenges improves.8 Further, when it comes to costs, there is some evidence to suggest that some of the biggest financial gains associated with integrated care has to do with reduced nonpsychiatric medical expenses of patients.9 This, then, suggests that practices that participate in capitated or accountable care organization structures could particularly benefit both clinically and financially from these collaborations.
If your practice has been challenged with the level of mental health care you are now expected to provide and has been contemplating even some small moves toward integrated care, now may the time to put those thoughts into action.
References
1. Foy JM et al. American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. Mental health competencies for pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019;144(5):e20192757.
2. AACAP Committee on Collaborative and Integrated Care and AACAP Committee on Quality Issues. Clinical update: Collaborative mental health care for children and adolescents in pediatric primary care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62(2):91-119.
3. Behavioral health care managers. AIMS Center, University of Washington. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://aims.uw.edu/online-bhcm-modules.
4. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://www.nncpap.org/.
5. Project Echo Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://hsc.unm.edu/echo.
6. Project TEACH. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://projectteachny.org.
7. Earls MF et al. Addressing mental health concerns in pediatrics: A practical resource toolkit for clinicians, 2nd edition. Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021.
8. Asarnow JR et al. Integrated medical-behavioral care compared with usual primary care for child and adolescent behavioral health: A meta analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.
9. Unutzer J et al. Long-term costs effects of collaborative care for late-life depression. Am J Manag Care. 2008.14(2):95-100.
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.
Widespread prescribing of stimulants with other CNS-active meds
Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.
Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.
The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The study was published online in BMJ Open.
‘Dangerous’ substances
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.
Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.
Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.
For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.
The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.
The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.
The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.
CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
Prescribing cascade
Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.
Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.
“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.
He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”
These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”
Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.
“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.
They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”
Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.
Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.
“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
Complex prescribing regimens
Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”
Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”
However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”
These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.
Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.
The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The study was published online in BMJ Open.
‘Dangerous’ substances
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.
Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.
Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.
For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.
The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.
The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.
The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.
CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
Prescribing cascade
Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.
Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.
“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.
He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”
These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”
Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.
“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.
They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”
Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.
Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.
“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
Complex prescribing regimens
Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”
Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”
However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”
These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.
Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.
The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The study was published online in BMJ Open.
‘Dangerous’ substances
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.
Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.
Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.
For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.
The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.
The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.
The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.
CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
Prescribing cascade
Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.
Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.
“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.
He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”
These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”
Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.
“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.
They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”
Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.
Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.
“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
Complex prescribing regimens
Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”
Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”
However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”
These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ OPEN
Most children with ADHD are not receiving treatment
Just more than one-third (34.8%) had received either treatment.
Researchers, led by Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law and professor of epidemiology at New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, New York, also found that girls were much less likely to get medications.
In this cross-sectional sample taken from 11, 723 children in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study, 1,206 children aged 9 and 10 years had parent-reported ADHD, and of those children, 15.7% of boys and 7% of girls were currently receiving ADHD medications. The parents reported the children met ADHD criteria according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Diagnoses have doubled but treatment numbers lag
Report authors noted that the percentage of U.S. children whose parents report their child has been diagnosed with ADHD has nearly doubled over 2 decades from 5.5% in 1999 to 9.8% in 2018. That has led to misperceptions among professionals and the public that the disorder is overdiagnosed and overtreated, the authors wrote.
However, they wrote, “a focus on the increasing numbers of children treated for ADHD does not give a sense of what fraction of children in the population with ADHD receive treatment.”
Higher uptake at lower income and education levels
Researchers also found that, contrary to popular belief, children with ADHD from families with lower educational levels and lower income were more likely than those with higher educational levels and higher incomes to have received outpatient mental health care.
Among children with ADHD whose parents did not have a high school education, 32.2% of children were receiving medications while among children of parents with a bachelor’s degree 11.5% received medications.
Among children from families with incomes of less than $25 000, 36.5% were receiving outpatient mental health care, compared with 20.1% of those from families with incomes of $75,000 or more.
“These patterns suggest that attitudinal rather than socioeconomic factors often impede the flow of children with ADHD into treatment,” they wrote.
Black children less likely to receive medications
The researchers found that substantially more White children (14.8% [104 of 759]) than Black children (9.4% [22 of 206]), received medication, a finding consistent with previous research.
“Population-based racial and ethnic gradients exist in prescriptions for stimulants and other controlled substances, with the highest rates in majority-White areas,” the authors wrote. “As a result of structural racism, Black parents’ perspectives might further influence ADHD management decisions through mistrust in clinicians and concerns over safety and efficacy of stimulants.”
“Physician efforts to recognize and manage their own implicit biases, together with patient-centered clinical approaches that promote shared decision-making,” might help narrow the treatment gap, the authors wrote. That includes talking with Black parents about their knowledge and beliefs concerning managing ADHD, they added.
Confirming diagnosis critical
The authors noted that not all children with parent-reported ADHD need treatment or would benefit from it.
Lenard Adler, MD, director of the adult ADHD program and professor of Psychiatry and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at New York University Langone Health, who was not part of the current study, said this research emphasizes the urgency of clinical diagnosis.
Dr. Adler was part of a team of researchers that found similar low numbers for treatment among adults with ADHD.
The current results highlight that “we want to get the diagnosis correct so that people who receive a diagnosis actually have it and, if they do, that they have access to care. Because the consequences for not having treatment for ADHD are significant,” Dr. Adler said.
He urged physicians who diagnose ADHD to make follow-up part of the care plan or these treatment gaps will persist.
The authors wrote that the results suggest a need to increase availability for mental health services and better communicate symptoms among parents, teachers, and primary care providers.
The authors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adler has consulted with Supernus Pharmaceuticals and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, has done research with Takeda, and has received royalty payments from NYU for licensing of ADHD training materials.
Just more than one-third (34.8%) had received either treatment.
Researchers, led by Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law and professor of epidemiology at New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, New York, also found that girls were much less likely to get medications.
In this cross-sectional sample taken from 11, 723 children in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study, 1,206 children aged 9 and 10 years had parent-reported ADHD, and of those children, 15.7% of boys and 7% of girls were currently receiving ADHD medications. The parents reported the children met ADHD criteria according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Diagnoses have doubled but treatment numbers lag
Report authors noted that the percentage of U.S. children whose parents report their child has been diagnosed with ADHD has nearly doubled over 2 decades from 5.5% in 1999 to 9.8% in 2018. That has led to misperceptions among professionals and the public that the disorder is overdiagnosed and overtreated, the authors wrote.
However, they wrote, “a focus on the increasing numbers of children treated for ADHD does not give a sense of what fraction of children in the population with ADHD receive treatment.”
Higher uptake at lower income and education levels
Researchers also found that, contrary to popular belief, children with ADHD from families with lower educational levels and lower income were more likely than those with higher educational levels and higher incomes to have received outpatient mental health care.
Among children with ADHD whose parents did not have a high school education, 32.2% of children were receiving medications while among children of parents with a bachelor’s degree 11.5% received medications.
Among children from families with incomes of less than $25 000, 36.5% were receiving outpatient mental health care, compared with 20.1% of those from families with incomes of $75,000 or more.
“These patterns suggest that attitudinal rather than socioeconomic factors often impede the flow of children with ADHD into treatment,” they wrote.
Black children less likely to receive medications
The researchers found that substantially more White children (14.8% [104 of 759]) than Black children (9.4% [22 of 206]), received medication, a finding consistent with previous research.
“Population-based racial and ethnic gradients exist in prescriptions for stimulants and other controlled substances, with the highest rates in majority-White areas,” the authors wrote. “As a result of structural racism, Black parents’ perspectives might further influence ADHD management decisions through mistrust in clinicians and concerns over safety and efficacy of stimulants.”
“Physician efforts to recognize and manage their own implicit biases, together with patient-centered clinical approaches that promote shared decision-making,” might help narrow the treatment gap, the authors wrote. That includes talking with Black parents about their knowledge and beliefs concerning managing ADHD, they added.
Confirming diagnosis critical
The authors noted that not all children with parent-reported ADHD need treatment or would benefit from it.
Lenard Adler, MD, director of the adult ADHD program and professor of Psychiatry and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at New York University Langone Health, who was not part of the current study, said this research emphasizes the urgency of clinical diagnosis.
Dr. Adler was part of a team of researchers that found similar low numbers for treatment among adults with ADHD.
The current results highlight that “we want to get the diagnosis correct so that people who receive a diagnosis actually have it and, if they do, that they have access to care. Because the consequences for not having treatment for ADHD are significant,” Dr. Adler said.
He urged physicians who diagnose ADHD to make follow-up part of the care plan or these treatment gaps will persist.
The authors wrote that the results suggest a need to increase availability for mental health services and better communicate symptoms among parents, teachers, and primary care providers.
The authors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adler has consulted with Supernus Pharmaceuticals and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, has done research with Takeda, and has received royalty payments from NYU for licensing of ADHD training materials.
Just more than one-third (34.8%) had received either treatment.
Researchers, led by Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law and professor of epidemiology at New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, New York, also found that girls were much less likely to get medications.
In this cross-sectional sample taken from 11, 723 children in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study, 1,206 children aged 9 and 10 years had parent-reported ADHD, and of those children, 15.7% of boys and 7% of girls were currently receiving ADHD medications. The parents reported the children met ADHD criteria according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Diagnoses have doubled but treatment numbers lag
Report authors noted that the percentage of U.S. children whose parents report their child has been diagnosed with ADHD has nearly doubled over 2 decades from 5.5% in 1999 to 9.8% in 2018. That has led to misperceptions among professionals and the public that the disorder is overdiagnosed and overtreated, the authors wrote.
However, they wrote, “a focus on the increasing numbers of children treated for ADHD does not give a sense of what fraction of children in the population with ADHD receive treatment.”
Higher uptake at lower income and education levels
Researchers also found that, contrary to popular belief, children with ADHD from families with lower educational levels and lower income were more likely than those with higher educational levels and higher incomes to have received outpatient mental health care.
Among children with ADHD whose parents did not have a high school education, 32.2% of children were receiving medications while among children of parents with a bachelor’s degree 11.5% received medications.
Among children from families with incomes of less than $25 000, 36.5% were receiving outpatient mental health care, compared with 20.1% of those from families with incomes of $75,000 or more.
“These patterns suggest that attitudinal rather than socioeconomic factors often impede the flow of children with ADHD into treatment,” they wrote.
Black children less likely to receive medications
The researchers found that substantially more White children (14.8% [104 of 759]) than Black children (9.4% [22 of 206]), received medication, a finding consistent with previous research.
“Population-based racial and ethnic gradients exist in prescriptions for stimulants and other controlled substances, with the highest rates in majority-White areas,” the authors wrote. “As a result of structural racism, Black parents’ perspectives might further influence ADHD management decisions through mistrust in clinicians and concerns over safety and efficacy of stimulants.”
“Physician efforts to recognize and manage their own implicit biases, together with patient-centered clinical approaches that promote shared decision-making,” might help narrow the treatment gap, the authors wrote. That includes talking with Black parents about their knowledge and beliefs concerning managing ADHD, they added.
Confirming diagnosis critical
The authors noted that not all children with parent-reported ADHD need treatment or would benefit from it.
Lenard Adler, MD, director of the adult ADHD program and professor of Psychiatry and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at New York University Langone Health, who was not part of the current study, said this research emphasizes the urgency of clinical diagnosis.
Dr. Adler was part of a team of researchers that found similar low numbers for treatment among adults with ADHD.
The current results highlight that “we want to get the diagnosis correct so that people who receive a diagnosis actually have it and, if they do, that they have access to care. Because the consequences for not having treatment for ADHD are significant,” Dr. Adler said.
He urged physicians who diagnose ADHD to make follow-up part of the care plan or these treatment gaps will persist.
The authors wrote that the results suggest a need to increase availability for mental health services and better communicate symptoms among parents, teachers, and primary care providers.
The authors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adler has consulted with Supernus Pharmaceuticals and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, has done research with Takeda, and has received royalty payments from NYU for licensing of ADHD training materials.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Long-term impact of childhood trauma explained
WASHINGTON –
“We already knew childhood trauma is associated with the later development of depressive and anxiety disorders, but it’s been unclear what makes sufferers of early trauma more likely to develop these psychiatric conditions,” study investigator Erika Kuzminskaite, PhD candidate, department of psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, told this news organization.
“The evidence now points to unbalanced stress systems as a possible cause of this vulnerability, and now the most important question is, how we can develop preventive interventions,” she added.
The findings were presented as part of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America Anxiety & Depression conference.
Elevated cortisol, inflammation
The study included 2,779 adults from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Two thirds of participants were female.
Participants retrospectively reported childhood trauma, defined as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse or emotional or physical neglect, before the age of 18 years. Severe trauma was defined as multiple types or increased frequency of abuse.
Of the total cohort, 48% reported experiencing some childhood trauma – 21% reported severe trauma, 27% reported mild trauma, and 42% reported no childhood trauma.
Among those with trauma, 89% had a current or remitted anxiety or depressive disorder, and 11% had no psychiatric sequelae. Among participants who reported no trauma, 68% had a current or remitted disorder, and 32% had no psychiatric disorders.
At baseline, researchers assessed markers of major bodily stress systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the immune-inflammatory system, and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). They examined these markers separately and cumulatively.
In one model, investigators found that levels of cortisol and inflammation were significantly elevated in those with severe childhood trauma compared to those with no childhood trauma. The effects were largest for the cumulative markers for HPA-axis, inflammation, and all stress system markers (Cohen’s d = 0.23, 0.12, and 0.25, respectively). There was no association with ANS markers.
The results were partially explained by lifestyle, said Ms. Kuzminskaite, who noted that people with severe childhood trauma tend to have a higher body mass index, smoke more, and have other unhealthy habits that may represent a “coping” mechanism for trauma.
Those who experienced childhood trauma also have higher rates of other disorders, including asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Ms. Kuzminskaite noted that people with childhood trauma have at least double the risk of cancer in later life.
When researchers adjusted for lifestyle factors and chronic conditions, the association for cortisol was reduced and that for inflammation disappeared. However, the cumulative inflammatory markers remained significant.
Another model examined lipopolysaccharide-stimulated (LPS) immune-inflammatory markers by childhood trauma severity. This provides a more “dynamic” measure of stress systems than looking only at static circulating levels in the blood, as was done in the first model, said Ms. Kuzminskaite.
“These levels should theoretically be more affected by experiences such as childhood trauma and they are also less sensitive to lifestyle.”
Here, researchers found significant positive associations with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, after adjusting for lifestyle and health-related covariates (cumulative index d = 0.19).
“Almost all people with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, had LPS-stimulated cytokines upregulated,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite. “So again, there is this dysregulation of immune system functioning in these subjects.”
And again, the strongest effect was for the cumulative index of all cytokines, she said.
Personalized interventions
Ms. Kuzminskaite noted the importance of learning the impact of early trauma on stress responses. “The goal is to eventually have personalized interventions for people with depression or anxiety related to childhood trauma, or even preventative interventions. If we know, for example, something is going wrong with a patient’s stress systems, we can suggest some therapeutic targets.”
Investigators in Amsterdam are examining the efficacy of mifepristone, which blocks progesterone and is used along with misoprostol for medication abortions and to treat high blood sugar. “The drug is supposed to reset the stress system functioning,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite.
It’s still important to target unhealthy lifestyle habits “that are really impacting the functioning of the stress systems,” she said. Lifestyle interventions could improve the efficacy of treatments for depression, for example, she added.
Luana Marques, PhD, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said such research is important.
“It reveals the potentially extensive and long-lasting impact of childhood trauma on functioning. The findings underscore the importance of equipping at-risk and trauma-exposed youth with evidence-based skills for managing stress,” she said.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON –
“We already knew childhood trauma is associated with the later development of depressive and anxiety disorders, but it’s been unclear what makes sufferers of early trauma more likely to develop these psychiatric conditions,” study investigator Erika Kuzminskaite, PhD candidate, department of psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, told this news organization.
“The evidence now points to unbalanced stress systems as a possible cause of this vulnerability, and now the most important question is, how we can develop preventive interventions,” she added.
The findings were presented as part of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America Anxiety & Depression conference.
Elevated cortisol, inflammation
The study included 2,779 adults from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Two thirds of participants were female.
Participants retrospectively reported childhood trauma, defined as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse or emotional or physical neglect, before the age of 18 years. Severe trauma was defined as multiple types or increased frequency of abuse.
Of the total cohort, 48% reported experiencing some childhood trauma – 21% reported severe trauma, 27% reported mild trauma, and 42% reported no childhood trauma.
Among those with trauma, 89% had a current or remitted anxiety or depressive disorder, and 11% had no psychiatric sequelae. Among participants who reported no trauma, 68% had a current or remitted disorder, and 32% had no psychiatric disorders.
At baseline, researchers assessed markers of major bodily stress systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the immune-inflammatory system, and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). They examined these markers separately and cumulatively.
In one model, investigators found that levels of cortisol and inflammation were significantly elevated in those with severe childhood trauma compared to those with no childhood trauma. The effects were largest for the cumulative markers for HPA-axis, inflammation, and all stress system markers (Cohen’s d = 0.23, 0.12, and 0.25, respectively). There was no association with ANS markers.
The results were partially explained by lifestyle, said Ms. Kuzminskaite, who noted that people with severe childhood trauma tend to have a higher body mass index, smoke more, and have other unhealthy habits that may represent a “coping” mechanism for trauma.
Those who experienced childhood trauma also have higher rates of other disorders, including asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Ms. Kuzminskaite noted that people with childhood trauma have at least double the risk of cancer in later life.
When researchers adjusted for lifestyle factors and chronic conditions, the association for cortisol was reduced and that for inflammation disappeared. However, the cumulative inflammatory markers remained significant.
Another model examined lipopolysaccharide-stimulated (LPS) immune-inflammatory markers by childhood trauma severity. This provides a more “dynamic” measure of stress systems than looking only at static circulating levels in the blood, as was done in the first model, said Ms. Kuzminskaite.
“These levels should theoretically be more affected by experiences such as childhood trauma and they are also less sensitive to lifestyle.”
Here, researchers found significant positive associations with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, after adjusting for lifestyle and health-related covariates (cumulative index d = 0.19).
“Almost all people with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, had LPS-stimulated cytokines upregulated,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite. “So again, there is this dysregulation of immune system functioning in these subjects.”
And again, the strongest effect was for the cumulative index of all cytokines, she said.
Personalized interventions
Ms. Kuzminskaite noted the importance of learning the impact of early trauma on stress responses. “The goal is to eventually have personalized interventions for people with depression or anxiety related to childhood trauma, or even preventative interventions. If we know, for example, something is going wrong with a patient’s stress systems, we can suggest some therapeutic targets.”
Investigators in Amsterdam are examining the efficacy of mifepristone, which blocks progesterone and is used along with misoprostol for medication abortions and to treat high blood sugar. “The drug is supposed to reset the stress system functioning,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite.
It’s still important to target unhealthy lifestyle habits “that are really impacting the functioning of the stress systems,” she said. Lifestyle interventions could improve the efficacy of treatments for depression, for example, she added.
Luana Marques, PhD, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said such research is important.
“It reveals the potentially extensive and long-lasting impact of childhood trauma on functioning. The findings underscore the importance of equipping at-risk and trauma-exposed youth with evidence-based skills for managing stress,” she said.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON –
“We already knew childhood trauma is associated with the later development of depressive and anxiety disorders, but it’s been unclear what makes sufferers of early trauma more likely to develop these psychiatric conditions,” study investigator Erika Kuzminskaite, PhD candidate, department of psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, told this news organization.
“The evidence now points to unbalanced stress systems as a possible cause of this vulnerability, and now the most important question is, how we can develop preventive interventions,” she added.
The findings were presented as part of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America Anxiety & Depression conference.
Elevated cortisol, inflammation
The study included 2,779 adults from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Two thirds of participants were female.
Participants retrospectively reported childhood trauma, defined as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse or emotional or physical neglect, before the age of 18 years. Severe trauma was defined as multiple types or increased frequency of abuse.
Of the total cohort, 48% reported experiencing some childhood trauma – 21% reported severe trauma, 27% reported mild trauma, and 42% reported no childhood trauma.
Among those with trauma, 89% had a current or remitted anxiety or depressive disorder, and 11% had no psychiatric sequelae. Among participants who reported no trauma, 68% had a current or remitted disorder, and 32% had no psychiatric disorders.
At baseline, researchers assessed markers of major bodily stress systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the immune-inflammatory system, and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). They examined these markers separately and cumulatively.
In one model, investigators found that levels of cortisol and inflammation were significantly elevated in those with severe childhood trauma compared to those with no childhood trauma. The effects were largest for the cumulative markers for HPA-axis, inflammation, and all stress system markers (Cohen’s d = 0.23, 0.12, and 0.25, respectively). There was no association with ANS markers.
The results were partially explained by lifestyle, said Ms. Kuzminskaite, who noted that people with severe childhood trauma tend to have a higher body mass index, smoke more, and have other unhealthy habits that may represent a “coping” mechanism for trauma.
Those who experienced childhood trauma also have higher rates of other disorders, including asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Ms. Kuzminskaite noted that people with childhood trauma have at least double the risk of cancer in later life.
When researchers adjusted for lifestyle factors and chronic conditions, the association for cortisol was reduced and that for inflammation disappeared. However, the cumulative inflammatory markers remained significant.
Another model examined lipopolysaccharide-stimulated (LPS) immune-inflammatory markers by childhood trauma severity. This provides a more “dynamic” measure of stress systems than looking only at static circulating levels in the blood, as was done in the first model, said Ms. Kuzminskaite.
“These levels should theoretically be more affected by experiences such as childhood trauma and they are also less sensitive to lifestyle.”
Here, researchers found significant positive associations with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, after adjusting for lifestyle and health-related covariates (cumulative index d = 0.19).
“Almost all people with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, had LPS-stimulated cytokines upregulated,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite. “So again, there is this dysregulation of immune system functioning in these subjects.”
And again, the strongest effect was for the cumulative index of all cytokines, she said.
Personalized interventions
Ms. Kuzminskaite noted the importance of learning the impact of early trauma on stress responses. “The goal is to eventually have personalized interventions for people with depression or anxiety related to childhood trauma, or even preventative interventions. If we know, for example, something is going wrong with a patient’s stress systems, we can suggest some therapeutic targets.”
Investigators in Amsterdam are examining the efficacy of mifepristone, which blocks progesterone and is used along with misoprostol for medication abortions and to treat high blood sugar. “The drug is supposed to reset the stress system functioning,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite.
It’s still important to target unhealthy lifestyle habits “that are really impacting the functioning of the stress systems,” she said. Lifestyle interventions could improve the efficacy of treatments for depression, for example, she added.
Luana Marques, PhD, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said such research is important.
“It reveals the potentially extensive and long-lasting impact of childhood trauma on functioning. The findings underscore the importance of equipping at-risk and trauma-exposed youth with evidence-based skills for managing stress,” she said.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADAA 2023
ASCO updates treatment guidelines for anxiety and depression
Since the last guidelines, published in 2014, screening and assessment for depression and anxiety have improved, and a large new evidence base has emerged. To ensure the most up-to-date recommendations, a group of experts spanning psychology, psychiatry, medical and surgical oncology, internal medicine, and nursing convened to review the current literature on managing depression and anxiety. The review included 61 studies – 16 meta-analyses, 44 randomized controlled trials, and one systematic review – published between 2013 and 2021.
“The purpose of this guideline update is to gather and examine the evidence published since the 2014 guideline ... [with a] focus on management and treatment only.” The overall goal is to provide “the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity” for patients with cancer, the experts write.
The new clinical practice guideline addresses the following question: What are the recommended treatment approaches in the management of anxiety and/or depression in survivors of adult cancer?
After an extensive literature search and analysis, the study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The expert panel’s recommendations fell into three broad categories – general management principles, treatment and care options for depressive symptoms, and treatment and care options for anxiety symptoms – with the guidelines for managing depression and anxiety largely mirroring each other.
The authors caution, however, that the guidelines “were developed in the context of mental health care being available and may not be applicable within other resource settings.”
General management principals
All patients with cancer, along with their caregivers, family members, or trusted confidants, should be offered information and resources on depression and anxiety. The panel gave this a “strong” recommendation but provided the caveat that the “information should be culturally informed and linguistically appropriate and can include a conversation between clinician and patient.”
Clinicians should select the most effective and least intensive intervention based on symptom severity when selecting treatment – what the panelists referred to as a stepped-care model. History of psychiatric diagnoses or substance use as well as prior responses to mental health treatment are some of the factors that may inform treatment choice.
For patients experiencing both depression and anxiety symptoms, treatment of depressive symptoms should be prioritized.
When referring a patient for further evaluation or care, clinicians “should make every effort to reduce barriers and facilitate patient follow-through,” the authors write. And health care professionals should regularly assess the treatment responses for patients receiving psychological or pharmacological interventions.
Overall, the treatments should be “supervised by a psychiatrist, and primary care or oncology providers work collaboratively with a nurse care manager to provide psychological interventions and monitor treatment compliance and outcomes,” the panelists write. “This type of collaborative care is found to be superior to usual care and is more cost-effective than face-to-face and pharmacologic treatment for depression.”
Treatment and care options for depressive and anxiety symptoms
For patients with moderate to severe depression symptoms, the panelists again stressed that clinicians should provide “culturally informed and linguistically appropriate information.” This information may include the frequency and symptoms of depression as well as signs these symptoms may be getting worse, with contact information for the medical team provided.
Among patients with moderate symptoms, clinicians can offer patients a range of individual or group therapy options, including cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or structured physical activity and exercise. For patients with severe symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer individual therapy with one of these four treatment options: CBT, behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or interpersonal therapy.
The panelists offered almost identical recommendations for patients with anxiety, except mindfulness-based stress reduction was an option for patients with severe symptoms.
Clinicians can also provide pharmacologic options to treat depression or anxiety in certain patients, though the panelists provided the caveat that evidence for pharmacologic management is weak.
“These guidelines make no recommendations about any specific pharmacologic regimen being better than another,” the experts wrote. And “patients should be warned of potential harm or adverse effects.”
Overall, the panelists noted that, as highlighted in the 2014 ASCO guideline, the updated version continues to stress the importance of providing education on coping with stress, anxiety, and depression.
And “for individuals with elevated symptoms, validation and normalizing patients’ experiences is crucial,” the panelists write.
Although the timing of screening is not the focus of this updated review, the experts recognized that “how and when patients with cancer and survivors are screened are important determinants of timely management of anxiety and depression.”
And unlike the prior guideline, “pharmacotherapy is not recommended as a first-line treatment, neither alone nor in combination,” the authors say.
Overall, the panelists emphasize how widespread the mental health care crisis is and that problems accessing mental health care remain. “The choice of intervention to offer patients facing such obstacles should be based on shared decision-making, taking into account availability, accessibility, patient preference, likelihood of adverse events, adherence, and cost,” the experts conclude.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Since the last guidelines, published in 2014, screening and assessment for depression and anxiety have improved, and a large new evidence base has emerged. To ensure the most up-to-date recommendations, a group of experts spanning psychology, psychiatry, medical and surgical oncology, internal medicine, and nursing convened to review the current literature on managing depression and anxiety. The review included 61 studies – 16 meta-analyses, 44 randomized controlled trials, and one systematic review – published between 2013 and 2021.
“The purpose of this guideline update is to gather and examine the evidence published since the 2014 guideline ... [with a] focus on management and treatment only.” The overall goal is to provide “the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity” for patients with cancer, the experts write.
The new clinical practice guideline addresses the following question: What are the recommended treatment approaches in the management of anxiety and/or depression in survivors of adult cancer?
After an extensive literature search and analysis, the study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The expert panel’s recommendations fell into three broad categories – general management principles, treatment and care options for depressive symptoms, and treatment and care options for anxiety symptoms – with the guidelines for managing depression and anxiety largely mirroring each other.
The authors caution, however, that the guidelines “were developed in the context of mental health care being available and may not be applicable within other resource settings.”
General management principals
All patients with cancer, along with their caregivers, family members, or trusted confidants, should be offered information and resources on depression and anxiety. The panel gave this a “strong” recommendation but provided the caveat that the “information should be culturally informed and linguistically appropriate and can include a conversation between clinician and patient.”
Clinicians should select the most effective and least intensive intervention based on symptom severity when selecting treatment – what the panelists referred to as a stepped-care model. History of psychiatric diagnoses or substance use as well as prior responses to mental health treatment are some of the factors that may inform treatment choice.
For patients experiencing both depression and anxiety symptoms, treatment of depressive symptoms should be prioritized.
When referring a patient for further evaluation or care, clinicians “should make every effort to reduce barriers and facilitate patient follow-through,” the authors write. And health care professionals should regularly assess the treatment responses for patients receiving psychological or pharmacological interventions.
Overall, the treatments should be “supervised by a psychiatrist, and primary care or oncology providers work collaboratively with a nurse care manager to provide psychological interventions and monitor treatment compliance and outcomes,” the panelists write. “This type of collaborative care is found to be superior to usual care and is more cost-effective than face-to-face and pharmacologic treatment for depression.”
Treatment and care options for depressive and anxiety symptoms
For patients with moderate to severe depression symptoms, the panelists again stressed that clinicians should provide “culturally informed and linguistically appropriate information.” This information may include the frequency and symptoms of depression as well as signs these symptoms may be getting worse, with contact information for the medical team provided.
Among patients with moderate symptoms, clinicians can offer patients a range of individual or group therapy options, including cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or structured physical activity and exercise. For patients with severe symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer individual therapy with one of these four treatment options: CBT, behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or interpersonal therapy.
The panelists offered almost identical recommendations for patients with anxiety, except mindfulness-based stress reduction was an option for patients with severe symptoms.
Clinicians can also provide pharmacologic options to treat depression or anxiety in certain patients, though the panelists provided the caveat that evidence for pharmacologic management is weak.
“These guidelines make no recommendations about any specific pharmacologic regimen being better than another,” the experts wrote. And “patients should be warned of potential harm or adverse effects.”
Overall, the panelists noted that, as highlighted in the 2014 ASCO guideline, the updated version continues to stress the importance of providing education on coping with stress, anxiety, and depression.
And “for individuals with elevated symptoms, validation and normalizing patients’ experiences is crucial,” the panelists write.
Although the timing of screening is not the focus of this updated review, the experts recognized that “how and when patients with cancer and survivors are screened are important determinants of timely management of anxiety and depression.”
And unlike the prior guideline, “pharmacotherapy is not recommended as a first-line treatment, neither alone nor in combination,” the authors say.
Overall, the panelists emphasize how widespread the mental health care crisis is and that problems accessing mental health care remain. “The choice of intervention to offer patients facing such obstacles should be based on shared decision-making, taking into account availability, accessibility, patient preference, likelihood of adverse events, adherence, and cost,” the experts conclude.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Since the last guidelines, published in 2014, screening and assessment for depression and anxiety have improved, and a large new evidence base has emerged. To ensure the most up-to-date recommendations, a group of experts spanning psychology, psychiatry, medical and surgical oncology, internal medicine, and nursing convened to review the current literature on managing depression and anxiety. The review included 61 studies – 16 meta-analyses, 44 randomized controlled trials, and one systematic review – published between 2013 and 2021.
“The purpose of this guideline update is to gather and examine the evidence published since the 2014 guideline ... [with a] focus on management and treatment only.” The overall goal is to provide “the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity” for patients with cancer, the experts write.
The new clinical practice guideline addresses the following question: What are the recommended treatment approaches in the management of anxiety and/or depression in survivors of adult cancer?
After an extensive literature search and analysis, the study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The expert panel’s recommendations fell into three broad categories – general management principles, treatment and care options for depressive symptoms, and treatment and care options for anxiety symptoms – with the guidelines for managing depression and anxiety largely mirroring each other.
The authors caution, however, that the guidelines “were developed in the context of mental health care being available and may not be applicable within other resource settings.”
General management principals
All patients with cancer, along with their caregivers, family members, or trusted confidants, should be offered information and resources on depression and anxiety. The panel gave this a “strong” recommendation but provided the caveat that the “information should be culturally informed and linguistically appropriate and can include a conversation between clinician and patient.”
Clinicians should select the most effective and least intensive intervention based on symptom severity when selecting treatment – what the panelists referred to as a stepped-care model. History of psychiatric diagnoses or substance use as well as prior responses to mental health treatment are some of the factors that may inform treatment choice.
For patients experiencing both depression and anxiety symptoms, treatment of depressive symptoms should be prioritized.
When referring a patient for further evaluation or care, clinicians “should make every effort to reduce barriers and facilitate patient follow-through,” the authors write. And health care professionals should regularly assess the treatment responses for patients receiving psychological or pharmacological interventions.
Overall, the treatments should be “supervised by a psychiatrist, and primary care or oncology providers work collaboratively with a nurse care manager to provide psychological interventions and monitor treatment compliance and outcomes,” the panelists write. “This type of collaborative care is found to be superior to usual care and is more cost-effective than face-to-face and pharmacologic treatment for depression.”
Treatment and care options for depressive and anxiety symptoms
For patients with moderate to severe depression symptoms, the panelists again stressed that clinicians should provide “culturally informed and linguistically appropriate information.” This information may include the frequency and symptoms of depression as well as signs these symptoms may be getting worse, with contact information for the medical team provided.
Among patients with moderate symptoms, clinicians can offer patients a range of individual or group therapy options, including cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or structured physical activity and exercise. For patients with severe symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer individual therapy with one of these four treatment options: CBT, behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or interpersonal therapy.
The panelists offered almost identical recommendations for patients with anxiety, except mindfulness-based stress reduction was an option for patients with severe symptoms.
Clinicians can also provide pharmacologic options to treat depression or anxiety in certain patients, though the panelists provided the caveat that evidence for pharmacologic management is weak.
“These guidelines make no recommendations about any specific pharmacologic regimen being better than another,” the experts wrote. And “patients should be warned of potential harm or adverse effects.”
Overall, the panelists noted that, as highlighted in the 2014 ASCO guideline, the updated version continues to stress the importance of providing education on coping with stress, anxiety, and depression.
And “for individuals with elevated symptoms, validation and normalizing patients’ experiences is crucial,” the panelists write.
Although the timing of screening is not the focus of this updated review, the experts recognized that “how and when patients with cancer and survivors are screened are important determinants of timely management of anxiety and depression.”
And unlike the prior guideline, “pharmacotherapy is not recommended as a first-line treatment, neither alone nor in combination,” the authors say.
Overall, the panelists emphasize how widespread the mental health care crisis is and that problems accessing mental health care remain. “The choice of intervention to offer patients facing such obstacles should be based on shared decision-making, taking into account availability, accessibility, patient preference, likelihood of adverse events, adherence, and cost,” the experts conclude.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Transcranial magnetic stimulation during pregnancy: An alternative to antidepressant treatment?
A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.
The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.
First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).
Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.
However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.
Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
Nonpharmacologic treatment options
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.
New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.
With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.
While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.
TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy
The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?
It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.
What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.
Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.
I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.
The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.
First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).
Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.
However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.
Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
Nonpharmacologic treatment options
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.
New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.
With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.
While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.
TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy
The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?
It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.
What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.
Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.
I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.
The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.
First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).
Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.
However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.
Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
Nonpharmacologic treatment options
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.
New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.
With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.
While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.
TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy
The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?
It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.
What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.
Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.
I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
Survey reveals room for improvement in teen substance use screening
WASHINGTON – , Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Uniformity in screening is lacking
Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.
The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).
A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.
A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.
Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).
The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.
At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.
“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
Data highlight regional resource gaps
The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.
However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.
The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
WASHINGTON – , Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Uniformity in screening is lacking
Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.
The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).
A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.
A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.
Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).
The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.
At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.
“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
Data highlight regional resource gaps
The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.
However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.
The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
WASHINGTON – , Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Uniformity in screening is lacking
Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.
The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).
A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.
A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.
Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).
The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.
At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.
“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
Data highlight regional resource gaps
The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.
However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.
The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
AT PAS 2023
AHA backs screening for cognitive impairment after stroke
Screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“Cognitive impairment after stroke is very common, is associated with other post-stroke outcomes, and often has significant impact on the quality of life,” Nada El Husseini, MD, MHSc, chair of the scientific statement writing group, told this news organization.
“It is important to screen stroke survivors for cognitive impairment as well as for associated comorbidities such as mood and sleep disorders,” said Dr. El Husseini, associate professor of neurology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.
The scientific statement was published online in Stroke. It’s the first to specifically focus on the cognitive impairment resulting from an overt stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic).
‘Actionable’ considerations for care
The writing group performed a “scoping” review of the literature on the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) to provide a framework for “actionable considerations” for clinical practice as well as to highlight gaps needing additional studies, Dr. El Husseini explained.
PSCI, ranging from mild to severe, occurs in up to 60% of stroke survivors in the first year after stroke; yet, it is often underreported and underdiagnosed, the writing group notes.
Up to 20% of stroke survivors who experience mild cognitive impairment fully recover cognitive function, and cognitive recovery is most likely within the first 6 months after a stroke.
However, improvement in cognitive impairment without return to prestroke levels is more frequent than is complete recovery. As many as one in three stroke survivors may develop dementia within 5 years of stroke.
The writing group also notes that PSCI is often associated with other conditions, including physical disability, sleep disorders, behavioral and personality changes, depression, and other neuropsychological changes – each of which may contribute to lower quality of life.
Currently, there is no “gold standard” for cognitive screening following stroke, but several brief cognitive screening tests, including the Mini–Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are widely used to identify cognitive impairment after stroke.
The statement also highlights the importance of assessing cognitive changes over time after stroke. Stroke survivors who experience unexplained difficulties with cognitive-related activities of daily living, following care instructions, or providing a reliable health history may be candidates for additional cognitive screening.
Manage risk factors to prevent repeat stroke
“Anticipatory guidance regarding home and driving safety and, return to work (if applicable) along with interdisciplinary collaboration among different medical and ancillary specialists in the diagnosis and management of cognitive impairment is key for the holistic care of stroke survivors,” Dr. El Husseini told this news organization.
The multidisciplinary poststroke health care team could include neurologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, neuropsychologists, gerontologists, and primary care providers.
“Because recurrent stroke is strongly associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia, prevention of recurrent strokes should be sought to decrease that risk,” Dr. El Husseini said. This includes addressing stroke risk factors, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation.
The writing group says research is needed in the future to determine how cognitive impairment develops after stroke and the impact of nonbrain factors, including infection, frailty, and social factors.
Further research is also needed to determine best practices for cognitive screening after stroke, including the development and use of screening instruments that consider demographic, cultural, and linguistic factors in determining “normal” function.
“Perhaps the most pressing need, however, is the development of effective and culturally relevant treatments for poststroke cognitive impairment,” Dr. El Husseini said in a news release.
“We hope to see big enough clinical trials that assess various techniques, medications, and lifestyle changes in diverse groups of patients that may help improve cognitive function,” she added.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.
Screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“Cognitive impairment after stroke is very common, is associated with other post-stroke outcomes, and often has significant impact on the quality of life,” Nada El Husseini, MD, MHSc, chair of the scientific statement writing group, told this news organization.
“It is important to screen stroke survivors for cognitive impairment as well as for associated comorbidities such as mood and sleep disorders,” said Dr. El Husseini, associate professor of neurology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.
The scientific statement was published online in Stroke. It’s the first to specifically focus on the cognitive impairment resulting from an overt stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic).
‘Actionable’ considerations for care
The writing group performed a “scoping” review of the literature on the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) to provide a framework for “actionable considerations” for clinical practice as well as to highlight gaps needing additional studies, Dr. El Husseini explained.
PSCI, ranging from mild to severe, occurs in up to 60% of stroke survivors in the first year after stroke; yet, it is often underreported and underdiagnosed, the writing group notes.
Up to 20% of stroke survivors who experience mild cognitive impairment fully recover cognitive function, and cognitive recovery is most likely within the first 6 months after a stroke.
However, improvement in cognitive impairment without return to prestroke levels is more frequent than is complete recovery. As many as one in three stroke survivors may develop dementia within 5 years of stroke.
The writing group also notes that PSCI is often associated with other conditions, including physical disability, sleep disorders, behavioral and personality changes, depression, and other neuropsychological changes – each of which may contribute to lower quality of life.
Currently, there is no “gold standard” for cognitive screening following stroke, but several brief cognitive screening tests, including the Mini–Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are widely used to identify cognitive impairment after stroke.
The statement also highlights the importance of assessing cognitive changes over time after stroke. Stroke survivors who experience unexplained difficulties with cognitive-related activities of daily living, following care instructions, or providing a reliable health history may be candidates for additional cognitive screening.
Manage risk factors to prevent repeat stroke
“Anticipatory guidance regarding home and driving safety and, return to work (if applicable) along with interdisciplinary collaboration among different medical and ancillary specialists in the diagnosis and management of cognitive impairment is key for the holistic care of stroke survivors,” Dr. El Husseini told this news organization.
The multidisciplinary poststroke health care team could include neurologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, neuropsychologists, gerontologists, and primary care providers.
“Because recurrent stroke is strongly associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia, prevention of recurrent strokes should be sought to decrease that risk,” Dr. El Husseini said. This includes addressing stroke risk factors, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation.
The writing group says research is needed in the future to determine how cognitive impairment develops after stroke and the impact of nonbrain factors, including infection, frailty, and social factors.
Further research is also needed to determine best practices for cognitive screening after stroke, including the development and use of screening instruments that consider demographic, cultural, and linguistic factors in determining “normal” function.
“Perhaps the most pressing need, however, is the development of effective and culturally relevant treatments for poststroke cognitive impairment,” Dr. El Husseini said in a news release.
“We hope to see big enough clinical trials that assess various techniques, medications, and lifestyle changes in diverse groups of patients that may help improve cognitive function,” she added.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.
Screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“Cognitive impairment after stroke is very common, is associated with other post-stroke outcomes, and often has significant impact on the quality of life,” Nada El Husseini, MD, MHSc, chair of the scientific statement writing group, told this news organization.
“It is important to screen stroke survivors for cognitive impairment as well as for associated comorbidities such as mood and sleep disorders,” said Dr. El Husseini, associate professor of neurology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.
The scientific statement was published online in Stroke. It’s the first to specifically focus on the cognitive impairment resulting from an overt stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic).
‘Actionable’ considerations for care
The writing group performed a “scoping” review of the literature on the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) to provide a framework for “actionable considerations” for clinical practice as well as to highlight gaps needing additional studies, Dr. El Husseini explained.
PSCI, ranging from mild to severe, occurs in up to 60% of stroke survivors in the first year after stroke; yet, it is often underreported and underdiagnosed, the writing group notes.
Up to 20% of stroke survivors who experience mild cognitive impairment fully recover cognitive function, and cognitive recovery is most likely within the first 6 months after a stroke.
However, improvement in cognitive impairment without return to prestroke levels is more frequent than is complete recovery. As many as one in three stroke survivors may develop dementia within 5 years of stroke.
The writing group also notes that PSCI is often associated with other conditions, including physical disability, sleep disorders, behavioral and personality changes, depression, and other neuropsychological changes – each of which may contribute to lower quality of life.
Currently, there is no “gold standard” for cognitive screening following stroke, but several brief cognitive screening tests, including the Mini–Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are widely used to identify cognitive impairment after stroke.
The statement also highlights the importance of assessing cognitive changes over time after stroke. Stroke survivors who experience unexplained difficulties with cognitive-related activities of daily living, following care instructions, or providing a reliable health history may be candidates for additional cognitive screening.
Manage risk factors to prevent repeat stroke
“Anticipatory guidance regarding home and driving safety and, return to work (if applicable) along with interdisciplinary collaboration among different medical and ancillary specialists in the diagnosis and management of cognitive impairment is key for the holistic care of stroke survivors,” Dr. El Husseini told this news organization.
The multidisciplinary poststroke health care team could include neurologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, neuropsychologists, gerontologists, and primary care providers.
“Because recurrent stroke is strongly associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia, prevention of recurrent strokes should be sought to decrease that risk,” Dr. El Husseini said. This includes addressing stroke risk factors, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation.
The writing group says research is needed in the future to determine how cognitive impairment develops after stroke and the impact of nonbrain factors, including infection, frailty, and social factors.
Further research is also needed to determine best practices for cognitive screening after stroke, including the development and use of screening instruments that consider demographic, cultural, and linguistic factors in determining “normal” function.
“Perhaps the most pressing need, however, is the development of effective and culturally relevant treatments for poststroke cognitive impairment,” Dr. El Husseini said in a news release.
“We hope to see big enough clinical trials that assess various techniques, medications, and lifestyle changes in diverse groups of patients that may help improve cognitive function,” she added.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.
Why is buprenorphine use flatlining?
Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.
“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.
Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.
Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.
A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.
During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).
However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.
From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).
Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option
“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.
“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.
The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.
“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.
The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use
The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.
Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.
However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”
The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.
Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.
The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.
“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.
Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.
Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.
A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.
During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).
However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.
From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).
Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option
“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.
“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.
The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.
“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.
The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use
The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.
Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.
However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”
The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.
Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.
The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.
“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.
Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.
Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.
A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.
During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).
However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.
From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).
Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option
“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.
“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.
The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.
“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.
The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use
The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.
Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.
However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”
The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.
Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.
The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Four profiles help identify kids at risk for suicide
The profiles were developed from their study of children and adolescents aged 5-18 years who had been admitted with a neuropsychiatric event to two children’s hospitals.
The researchers used Bayesian regression to identify the profiles developed from 32 covariates: age, sex, and 30 mental health diagnostic groups from April 2016 to March 2020. The profiles include low-, moderate-, high- and very-high-risk categories.
The study, led by Mert Sekmen with the division of hospital medicine at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, and a student at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., included 1,098 children, average age 14. Of those, 406 (37%) were diagnosed with a self-harm event.
Traditionally, single diagnoses have been linked with risk of self-harm, independent of other comorbidities, but this study gauges risk for a set of diagnoses.
Findings were published online in Pediatrics.
The risk groups were described as follows:
- Low risk. (45% of the study population; median risk of 0.04 (interquartile range, 0.03-0.04; odds ratio, 0.08). The group included children aged 5-9 years with a non–mental health diagnosis, and without mood, behavioral, psychotic, developmental, trauma, or substance-related disorders.
- Moderate risk. (8% of the study group). This group had the same risk as the baseline risk for the entire cohort (37%) and served as the reference group, with a median risk of 0.30 (IQR, 0.27-0.33). This profile was characterized by several mood disorders and behavioral disorders but without depressive disorders.
- High risk. (36%) This group had an average risk of 0.69 (IQR, 0.67-0.71; OR, 5.09). This profile included female adolescents ages 14-17 with depression and anxiety in conjunction with substance- and trauma-related disorders. Personality and eating disorders were significant in this group. Importantly, the authors wrote, the high-risk group did not include behavioral and developmental disorders.
- Very high risk. (11%) The very-high-risk profile had the highest average risk of 0.79 (IQR, 0.73-0.79; OR, 7.21) and included male children aged 10-13. This profile, like the high-risk profile, included anxiety and depressive disorders. The very-high-risk profile differed from the high-risk with its inclusion of bipolar disorder; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and trauma-related and developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability, along with conduct disorders. Neither the high- nor the very-high-risk profiles included a concurrent non–mental health diagnosis.
Differences by sex
The authors explained some of the differences by sex. They noted that in a study of children aged 5-11, deaths by suicide were more prevalent among boys. A mental health diagnosis was identified in 31%, the most common being ADHD, depression, and other unspecified co-occurring disorders.
“The very-high-risk group also reflects a concerning rise in death by suicide among (males) aged 10-13, who have seen rates nearly triple from 2007 to 2017,” the authors wrote.
The authors pointed out that, although incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders between male and female children is much the same before adolescence, “female adolescents are twice as likely to be diagnosed with either disorder during adolescence. Girls also have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts after puberty.”
Eating disorders were also included in the high-risk profile. A study showed that emergency department visits for adolescent girls attempting suicide were 51% higher from February to March 2021, compared with the same period in the pre-COVID-19 year 2019.
Jason Lewis, PhD, psychologist and section director of mood, anxiety and trauma disorders in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not part of the research team, said the “constellations of risk factors put into acuity levels” helps to better project risk than knowing the risk associated with a particular diagnosis.
Gap closing between young children, adolescents
Dr. Lewis said he was surprised by the young age of 10-13 among the boys in the highest-risk category. That speaks to the differences from standard thinking this paper points out, he said. “Generally, we think about adolescents as being at the highest risk of suicide death and suicidal behavior,” he said.
Dr. Lewis said it’s important to note that the authors acknowledge these profiles are not static. He gave an example that the rate of suicide deaths among females is rising.
“As things like that change, some of these risk profiles will change as well.”
Dr. Lewis said the profiles may be especially helpful to medical providers in emergency departments or those making discharge decisions who don’t have an ongoing relationship with a patient.
The information could also help educators and lay people, “think about suicide in the youth population in ways we don’t normally think about it,” Dr. Lewis said.
Covariates considered for profiles were determined through expert consensus between pediatric psychiatrists, general pediatricians, pediatric hospitalists, pediatric complex care physicians, and pediatric pharmacoepidemiologists.
Age was broken into three groups: 5-9 years, 10-13 years, and 14-17 years based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting and previous studies that showed significant increases in suicide rates in these age-based subgroups.
Results are preliminary
The authors note that the profiles were developed using data from 1,000 children with neuropsychiatric complaints at two academic children’s hospitals and are thus preliminary.
“Future studies should focus on validating these risk profiles in a larger, more heterogeneous population of children and adolescents,” the authors write.
They also acknowledge that they were not able to include factors such as medication use, previous suicidal behavior, and family and social support, which also factor into risk.
The study authors and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.
The profiles were developed from their study of children and adolescents aged 5-18 years who had been admitted with a neuropsychiatric event to two children’s hospitals.
The researchers used Bayesian regression to identify the profiles developed from 32 covariates: age, sex, and 30 mental health diagnostic groups from April 2016 to March 2020. The profiles include low-, moderate-, high- and very-high-risk categories.
The study, led by Mert Sekmen with the division of hospital medicine at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, and a student at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., included 1,098 children, average age 14. Of those, 406 (37%) were diagnosed with a self-harm event.
Traditionally, single diagnoses have been linked with risk of self-harm, independent of other comorbidities, but this study gauges risk for a set of diagnoses.
Findings were published online in Pediatrics.
The risk groups were described as follows:
- Low risk. (45% of the study population; median risk of 0.04 (interquartile range, 0.03-0.04; odds ratio, 0.08). The group included children aged 5-9 years with a non–mental health diagnosis, and without mood, behavioral, psychotic, developmental, trauma, or substance-related disorders.
- Moderate risk. (8% of the study group). This group had the same risk as the baseline risk for the entire cohort (37%) and served as the reference group, with a median risk of 0.30 (IQR, 0.27-0.33). This profile was characterized by several mood disorders and behavioral disorders but without depressive disorders.
- High risk. (36%) This group had an average risk of 0.69 (IQR, 0.67-0.71; OR, 5.09). This profile included female adolescents ages 14-17 with depression and anxiety in conjunction with substance- and trauma-related disorders. Personality and eating disorders were significant in this group. Importantly, the authors wrote, the high-risk group did not include behavioral and developmental disorders.
- Very high risk. (11%) The very-high-risk profile had the highest average risk of 0.79 (IQR, 0.73-0.79; OR, 7.21) and included male children aged 10-13. This profile, like the high-risk profile, included anxiety and depressive disorders. The very-high-risk profile differed from the high-risk with its inclusion of bipolar disorder; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and trauma-related and developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability, along with conduct disorders. Neither the high- nor the very-high-risk profiles included a concurrent non–mental health diagnosis.
Differences by sex
The authors explained some of the differences by sex. They noted that in a study of children aged 5-11, deaths by suicide were more prevalent among boys. A mental health diagnosis was identified in 31%, the most common being ADHD, depression, and other unspecified co-occurring disorders.
“The very-high-risk group also reflects a concerning rise in death by suicide among (males) aged 10-13, who have seen rates nearly triple from 2007 to 2017,” the authors wrote.
The authors pointed out that, although incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders between male and female children is much the same before adolescence, “female adolescents are twice as likely to be diagnosed with either disorder during adolescence. Girls also have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts after puberty.”
Eating disorders were also included in the high-risk profile. A study showed that emergency department visits for adolescent girls attempting suicide were 51% higher from February to March 2021, compared with the same period in the pre-COVID-19 year 2019.
Jason Lewis, PhD, psychologist and section director of mood, anxiety and trauma disorders in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not part of the research team, said the “constellations of risk factors put into acuity levels” helps to better project risk than knowing the risk associated with a particular diagnosis.
Gap closing between young children, adolescents
Dr. Lewis said he was surprised by the young age of 10-13 among the boys in the highest-risk category. That speaks to the differences from standard thinking this paper points out, he said. “Generally, we think about adolescents as being at the highest risk of suicide death and suicidal behavior,” he said.
Dr. Lewis said it’s important to note that the authors acknowledge these profiles are not static. He gave an example that the rate of suicide deaths among females is rising.
“As things like that change, some of these risk profiles will change as well.”
Dr. Lewis said the profiles may be especially helpful to medical providers in emergency departments or those making discharge decisions who don’t have an ongoing relationship with a patient.
The information could also help educators and lay people, “think about suicide in the youth population in ways we don’t normally think about it,” Dr. Lewis said.
Covariates considered for profiles were determined through expert consensus between pediatric psychiatrists, general pediatricians, pediatric hospitalists, pediatric complex care physicians, and pediatric pharmacoepidemiologists.
Age was broken into three groups: 5-9 years, 10-13 years, and 14-17 years based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting and previous studies that showed significant increases in suicide rates in these age-based subgroups.
Results are preliminary
The authors note that the profiles were developed using data from 1,000 children with neuropsychiatric complaints at two academic children’s hospitals and are thus preliminary.
“Future studies should focus on validating these risk profiles in a larger, more heterogeneous population of children and adolescents,” the authors write.
They also acknowledge that they were not able to include factors such as medication use, previous suicidal behavior, and family and social support, which also factor into risk.
The study authors and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.
The profiles were developed from their study of children and adolescents aged 5-18 years who had been admitted with a neuropsychiatric event to two children’s hospitals.
The researchers used Bayesian regression to identify the profiles developed from 32 covariates: age, sex, and 30 mental health diagnostic groups from April 2016 to March 2020. The profiles include low-, moderate-, high- and very-high-risk categories.
The study, led by Mert Sekmen with the division of hospital medicine at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, and a student at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., included 1,098 children, average age 14. Of those, 406 (37%) were diagnosed with a self-harm event.
Traditionally, single diagnoses have been linked with risk of self-harm, independent of other comorbidities, but this study gauges risk for a set of diagnoses.
Findings were published online in Pediatrics.
The risk groups were described as follows:
- Low risk. (45% of the study population; median risk of 0.04 (interquartile range, 0.03-0.04; odds ratio, 0.08). The group included children aged 5-9 years with a non–mental health diagnosis, and without mood, behavioral, psychotic, developmental, trauma, or substance-related disorders.
- Moderate risk. (8% of the study group). This group had the same risk as the baseline risk for the entire cohort (37%) and served as the reference group, with a median risk of 0.30 (IQR, 0.27-0.33). This profile was characterized by several mood disorders and behavioral disorders but without depressive disorders.
- High risk. (36%) This group had an average risk of 0.69 (IQR, 0.67-0.71; OR, 5.09). This profile included female adolescents ages 14-17 with depression and anxiety in conjunction with substance- and trauma-related disorders. Personality and eating disorders were significant in this group. Importantly, the authors wrote, the high-risk group did not include behavioral and developmental disorders.
- Very high risk. (11%) The very-high-risk profile had the highest average risk of 0.79 (IQR, 0.73-0.79; OR, 7.21) and included male children aged 10-13. This profile, like the high-risk profile, included anxiety and depressive disorders. The very-high-risk profile differed from the high-risk with its inclusion of bipolar disorder; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and trauma-related and developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability, along with conduct disorders. Neither the high- nor the very-high-risk profiles included a concurrent non–mental health diagnosis.
Differences by sex
The authors explained some of the differences by sex. They noted that in a study of children aged 5-11, deaths by suicide were more prevalent among boys. A mental health diagnosis was identified in 31%, the most common being ADHD, depression, and other unspecified co-occurring disorders.
“The very-high-risk group also reflects a concerning rise in death by suicide among (males) aged 10-13, who have seen rates nearly triple from 2007 to 2017,” the authors wrote.
The authors pointed out that, although incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders between male and female children is much the same before adolescence, “female adolescents are twice as likely to be diagnosed with either disorder during adolescence. Girls also have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts after puberty.”
Eating disorders were also included in the high-risk profile. A study showed that emergency department visits for adolescent girls attempting suicide were 51% higher from February to March 2021, compared with the same period in the pre-COVID-19 year 2019.
Jason Lewis, PhD, psychologist and section director of mood, anxiety and trauma disorders in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not part of the research team, said the “constellations of risk factors put into acuity levels” helps to better project risk than knowing the risk associated with a particular diagnosis.
Gap closing between young children, adolescents
Dr. Lewis said he was surprised by the young age of 10-13 among the boys in the highest-risk category. That speaks to the differences from standard thinking this paper points out, he said. “Generally, we think about adolescents as being at the highest risk of suicide death and suicidal behavior,” he said.
Dr. Lewis said it’s important to note that the authors acknowledge these profiles are not static. He gave an example that the rate of suicide deaths among females is rising.
“As things like that change, some of these risk profiles will change as well.”
Dr. Lewis said the profiles may be especially helpful to medical providers in emergency departments or those making discharge decisions who don’t have an ongoing relationship with a patient.
The information could also help educators and lay people, “think about suicide in the youth population in ways we don’t normally think about it,” Dr. Lewis said.
Covariates considered for profiles were determined through expert consensus between pediatric psychiatrists, general pediatricians, pediatric hospitalists, pediatric complex care physicians, and pediatric pharmacoepidemiologists.
Age was broken into three groups: 5-9 years, 10-13 years, and 14-17 years based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting and previous studies that showed significant increases in suicide rates in these age-based subgroups.
Results are preliminary
The authors note that the profiles were developed using data from 1,000 children with neuropsychiatric complaints at two academic children’s hospitals and are thus preliminary.
“Future studies should focus on validating these risk profiles in a larger, more heterogeneous population of children and adolescents,” the authors write.
They also acknowledge that they were not able to include factors such as medication use, previous suicidal behavior, and family and social support, which also factor into risk.
The study authors and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.
FROM PEDIATRICS