User login
Menopause an independent risk factor for schizophrenia relapse
Investigators studied a cohort of close to 62,000 people with SSDs, stratifying individuals by sex and age, and found that starting between the ages of 45 and 50 years – when the menopausal transition is underway – women were more frequently hospitalized for psychosis, compared with men and women younger than 45 years.
In addition, the protective effect of antipsychotic medication was highest in women younger than 45 years and lowest in women aged 45 years or older, even at higher doses.
“Women with schizophrenia who are older than 45 are a vulnerable group for relapse, and higher doses of antipsychotics are not the answer,” lead author Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience, University Medical Center of Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.
The study was published online in Schizophrenia Bulletin.
Vulnerable period
There is an association between estrogen levels and disease severity throughout the life stages of women with SSDs, with lower estrogen levels associated with psychosis, for example, during low estrogenic phases of the menstrual cycle, the investigators note.
“After menopause, estrogen levels remain low, which is associated with a deterioration in the clinical course; therefore, women with SSD have sex-specific psychiatric needs that differ according to their life stage,” they add.
“Estrogens inhibit an important liver enzyme (cytochrome P-450 [CYP1A2]), which leads to higher blood levels of several antipsychotics like olanzapine and clozapine,” said Dr. Sommer. In addition, estrogens make the stomach less acidic, “leading to easier resorption of medication.”
As a clinician, Dr. Sommer said that she has “often witnessed a worsening of symptoms [of psychosis] after menopause.” As a researcher, she “knew that estrogens can have ameliorating effects on brain health, especially in schizophrenia.”
She and her colleagues were motivated to research the issue because there is a “remarkable paucity” of quantitative data on a “vulnerable period that all women with schizophrenia will experience.”
Detailed, quantitative data
The researchers sought to provide “detailed, quantitative data on life-stage dependent clinical changes occurring in women with SSD, using an intra-individual design to prevent confounding.”
They drew on data from a nationwide, register-based cohort study of all hospitalized patients with SSD between 1972 and 2014 in Finland (n = 61,889), with follow-up from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2017.
People were stratified according to age (younger than 45 years and 45 years or older), with the same person contributing person-time to both age groups. The cohort was also subdivided into 5-year age groups, starting at age 20 years and ending at age 69 years.
The primary outcome measure was relapse (that is, inpatient hospitalization because of psychosis).
The researchers focused specifically on monotherapies, excluding time periods when two or more antipsychotics were used concomitantly. They also looked at antipsychotic nonuse periods.
Antipsychotic monotherapies were categorized into defined daily doses per day (DDDs/d):
- less than 0.4
- 0.4 to 0.6
- 0.6 to 0.9
- 0.9 to less than 1.1
- 1.1 to less than 1.4
- 1.4 to less than 1.6
- 1.6 or more
The researchers restricted the main analyses to the four most frequently used oral antipsychotic monotherapies: clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.
The turning tide
The cohort consisted of more men than women (31,104 vs. 30,785, respectively), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 49.8 (16.6) years in women vs. 43.6 (14.8) in men.
Among both sexes, olanzapine was the most prescribed antipsychotic (roughly one-quarter of patients). In women, the next most common antipsychotic was risperidone, followed by quetiapine and clozapine, whereas in men, the second most common antipsychotic was clozapine, followed by risperidone and quetiapine.
When the researchers compared men and women younger than 45 years, there were “few consistent differences” in proportions hospitalized for psychosis.
Starting at age 45 years and continuing through the oldest age group (65-69 years), higher proportions of women were hospitalized for psychosis, compared with their male peers (all Ps < .00001).
Women 45 or older had significantly higher risk for relapse associated with standard dose use, compared with the other groups.
When the researchers compared men and women older and younger than 45 years, women younger than 45 years showed lower adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) at doses between of 0.6-0.9 DDDs/d, whereas for doses over 1.1 DDDs/d, women aged 45 years or older showed “remarkably higher” aHRs, compared with women younger than 45 years and men aged 45 years or older, with a difference that increased with increasing dose.
In women, the efficacy of the antipsychotics was decreased at these DDDs/d.
“We ... showed that antipsychotic monotherapy is most effective in preventing relapse in women below 45, as compared to women above that age, and also as compared to men of all ages,” the authors summarize. But after age 45 years, “the tide seems to turn for women,” compared with younger women and with men of the same age group.
One of several study limitations was the use of age as an estimation of menopausal status, they note.
Don’t just raise the dose
Commenting on the research, Mary Seeman, MD, professor emerita, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, noted the study corroborates her group’s findings regarding the effect of menopause on antipsychotic response.
“When the efficacy of previously effective antipsychotic doses wanes at menopause, raising the dose is not the treatment of choice because it increases the risk of weight gain, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events,” said Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the current research.
“Changing to an antipsychotic that is less affected by estrogen loss may work better,” she continued, noting that amisulpride and aripiprazole “work well post menopause.”
Additional interventions may include changing to a depot or skin-patch antipsychotic that “obviates first-pass metabolism,” adding hormone replacement or a selective estrogen receptor modulator or including phytoestrogens (bioidenticals) in the diet.
The study yields research recommendations, including comparing the effectiveness of different antipsychotics in postmenopausal women with SSDs, recruiting pre- and postmenopausal women in trials of antipsychotic drugs, and stratifying by hormonal status when analyzing results of antipsychotic trials, Dr. Seeman said.
This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and the Academy of Finland. The Dutch Medical Research Association supported Dr. Sommer. Dr. Sommer declares no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Seeman declares no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators studied a cohort of close to 62,000 people with SSDs, stratifying individuals by sex and age, and found that starting between the ages of 45 and 50 years – when the menopausal transition is underway – women were more frequently hospitalized for psychosis, compared with men and women younger than 45 years.
In addition, the protective effect of antipsychotic medication was highest in women younger than 45 years and lowest in women aged 45 years or older, even at higher doses.
“Women with schizophrenia who are older than 45 are a vulnerable group for relapse, and higher doses of antipsychotics are not the answer,” lead author Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience, University Medical Center of Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.
The study was published online in Schizophrenia Bulletin.
Vulnerable period
There is an association between estrogen levels and disease severity throughout the life stages of women with SSDs, with lower estrogen levels associated with psychosis, for example, during low estrogenic phases of the menstrual cycle, the investigators note.
“After menopause, estrogen levels remain low, which is associated with a deterioration in the clinical course; therefore, women with SSD have sex-specific psychiatric needs that differ according to their life stage,” they add.
“Estrogens inhibit an important liver enzyme (cytochrome P-450 [CYP1A2]), which leads to higher blood levels of several antipsychotics like olanzapine and clozapine,” said Dr. Sommer. In addition, estrogens make the stomach less acidic, “leading to easier resorption of medication.”
As a clinician, Dr. Sommer said that she has “often witnessed a worsening of symptoms [of psychosis] after menopause.” As a researcher, she “knew that estrogens can have ameliorating effects on brain health, especially in schizophrenia.”
She and her colleagues were motivated to research the issue because there is a “remarkable paucity” of quantitative data on a “vulnerable period that all women with schizophrenia will experience.”
Detailed, quantitative data
The researchers sought to provide “detailed, quantitative data on life-stage dependent clinical changes occurring in women with SSD, using an intra-individual design to prevent confounding.”
They drew on data from a nationwide, register-based cohort study of all hospitalized patients with SSD between 1972 and 2014 in Finland (n = 61,889), with follow-up from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2017.
People were stratified according to age (younger than 45 years and 45 years or older), with the same person contributing person-time to both age groups. The cohort was also subdivided into 5-year age groups, starting at age 20 years and ending at age 69 years.
The primary outcome measure was relapse (that is, inpatient hospitalization because of psychosis).
The researchers focused specifically on monotherapies, excluding time periods when two or more antipsychotics were used concomitantly. They also looked at antipsychotic nonuse periods.
Antipsychotic monotherapies were categorized into defined daily doses per day (DDDs/d):
- less than 0.4
- 0.4 to 0.6
- 0.6 to 0.9
- 0.9 to less than 1.1
- 1.1 to less than 1.4
- 1.4 to less than 1.6
- 1.6 or more
The researchers restricted the main analyses to the four most frequently used oral antipsychotic monotherapies: clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.
The turning tide
The cohort consisted of more men than women (31,104 vs. 30,785, respectively), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 49.8 (16.6) years in women vs. 43.6 (14.8) in men.
Among both sexes, olanzapine was the most prescribed antipsychotic (roughly one-quarter of patients). In women, the next most common antipsychotic was risperidone, followed by quetiapine and clozapine, whereas in men, the second most common antipsychotic was clozapine, followed by risperidone and quetiapine.
When the researchers compared men and women younger than 45 years, there were “few consistent differences” in proportions hospitalized for psychosis.
Starting at age 45 years and continuing through the oldest age group (65-69 years), higher proportions of women were hospitalized for psychosis, compared with their male peers (all Ps < .00001).
Women 45 or older had significantly higher risk for relapse associated with standard dose use, compared with the other groups.
When the researchers compared men and women older and younger than 45 years, women younger than 45 years showed lower adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) at doses between of 0.6-0.9 DDDs/d, whereas for doses over 1.1 DDDs/d, women aged 45 years or older showed “remarkably higher” aHRs, compared with women younger than 45 years and men aged 45 years or older, with a difference that increased with increasing dose.
In women, the efficacy of the antipsychotics was decreased at these DDDs/d.
“We ... showed that antipsychotic monotherapy is most effective in preventing relapse in women below 45, as compared to women above that age, and also as compared to men of all ages,” the authors summarize. But after age 45 years, “the tide seems to turn for women,” compared with younger women and with men of the same age group.
One of several study limitations was the use of age as an estimation of menopausal status, they note.
Don’t just raise the dose
Commenting on the research, Mary Seeman, MD, professor emerita, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, noted the study corroborates her group’s findings regarding the effect of menopause on antipsychotic response.
“When the efficacy of previously effective antipsychotic doses wanes at menopause, raising the dose is not the treatment of choice because it increases the risk of weight gain, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events,” said Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the current research.
“Changing to an antipsychotic that is less affected by estrogen loss may work better,” she continued, noting that amisulpride and aripiprazole “work well post menopause.”
Additional interventions may include changing to a depot or skin-patch antipsychotic that “obviates first-pass metabolism,” adding hormone replacement or a selective estrogen receptor modulator or including phytoestrogens (bioidenticals) in the diet.
The study yields research recommendations, including comparing the effectiveness of different antipsychotics in postmenopausal women with SSDs, recruiting pre- and postmenopausal women in trials of antipsychotic drugs, and stratifying by hormonal status when analyzing results of antipsychotic trials, Dr. Seeman said.
This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and the Academy of Finland. The Dutch Medical Research Association supported Dr. Sommer. Dr. Sommer declares no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Seeman declares no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators studied a cohort of close to 62,000 people with SSDs, stratifying individuals by sex and age, and found that starting between the ages of 45 and 50 years – when the menopausal transition is underway – women were more frequently hospitalized for psychosis, compared with men and women younger than 45 years.
In addition, the protective effect of antipsychotic medication was highest in women younger than 45 years and lowest in women aged 45 years or older, even at higher doses.
“Women with schizophrenia who are older than 45 are a vulnerable group for relapse, and higher doses of antipsychotics are not the answer,” lead author Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience, University Medical Center of Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.
The study was published online in Schizophrenia Bulletin.
Vulnerable period
There is an association between estrogen levels and disease severity throughout the life stages of women with SSDs, with lower estrogen levels associated with psychosis, for example, during low estrogenic phases of the menstrual cycle, the investigators note.
“After menopause, estrogen levels remain low, which is associated with a deterioration in the clinical course; therefore, women with SSD have sex-specific psychiatric needs that differ according to their life stage,” they add.
“Estrogens inhibit an important liver enzyme (cytochrome P-450 [CYP1A2]), which leads to higher blood levels of several antipsychotics like olanzapine and clozapine,” said Dr. Sommer. In addition, estrogens make the stomach less acidic, “leading to easier resorption of medication.”
As a clinician, Dr. Sommer said that she has “often witnessed a worsening of symptoms [of psychosis] after menopause.” As a researcher, she “knew that estrogens can have ameliorating effects on brain health, especially in schizophrenia.”
She and her colleagues were motivated to research the issue because there is a “remarkable paucity” of quantitative data on a “vulnerable period that all women with schizophrenia will experience.”
Detailed, quantitative data
The researchers sought to provide “detailed, quantitative data on life-stage dependent clinical changes occurring in women with SSD, using an intra-individual design to prevent confounding.”
They drew on data from a nationwide, register-based cohort study of all hospitalized patients with SSD between 1972 and 2014 in Finland (n = 61,889), with follow-up from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2017.
People were stratified according to age (younger than 45 years and 45 years or older), with the same person contributing person-time to both age groups. The cohort was also subdivided into 5-year age groups, starting at age 20 years and ending at age 69 years.
The primary outcome measure was relapse (that is, inpatient hospitalization because of psychosis).
The researchers focused specifically on monotherapies, excluding time periods when two or more antipsychotics were used concomitantly. They also looked at antipsychotic nonuse periods.
Antipsychotic monotherapies were categorized into defined daily doses per day (DDDs/d):
- less than 0.4
- 0.4 to 0.6
- 0.6 to 0.9
- 0.9 to less than 1.1
- 1.1 to less than 1.4
- 1.4 to less than 1.6
- 1.6 or more
The researchers restricted the main analyses to the four most frequently used oral antipsychotic monotherapies: clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.
The turning tide
The cohort consisted of more men than women (31,104 vs. 30,785, respectively), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 49.8 (16.6) years in women vs. 43.6 (14.8) in men.
Among both sexes, olanzapine was the most prescribed antipsychotic (roughly one-quarter of patients). In women, the next most common antipsychotic was risperidone, followed by quetiapine and clozapine, whereas in men, the second most common antipsychotic was clozapine, followed by risperidone and quetiapine.
When the researchers compared men and women younger than 45 years, there were “few consistent differences” in proportions hospitalized for psychosis.
Starting at age 45 years and continuing through the oldest age group (65-69 years), higher proportions of women were hospitalized for psychosis, compared with their male peers (all Ps < .00001).
Women 45 or older had significantly higher risk for relapse associated with standard dose use, compared with the other groups.
When the researchers compared men and women older and younger than 45 years, women younger than 45 years showed lower adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) at doses between of 0.6-0.9 DDDs/d, whereas for doses over 1.1 DDDs/d, women aged 45 years or older showed “remarkably higher” aHRs, compared with women younger than 45 years and men aged 45 years or older, with a difference that increased with increasing dose.
In women, the efficacy of the antipsychotics was decreased at these DDDs/d.
“We ... showed that antipsychotic monotherapy is most effective in preventing relapse in women below 45, as compared to women above that age, and also as compared to men of all ages,” the authors summarize. But after age 45 years, “the tide seems to turn for women,” compared with younger women and with men of the same age group.
One of several study limitations was the use of age as an estimation of menopausal status, they note.
Don’t just raise the dose
Commenting on the research, Mary Seeman, MD, professor emerita, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, noted the study corroborates her group’s findings regarding the effect of menopause on antipsychotic response.
“When the efficacy of previously effective antipsychotic doses wanes at menopause, raising the dose is not the treatment of choice because it increases the risk of weight gain, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events,” said Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the current research.
“Changing to an antipsychotic that is less affected by estrogen loss may work better,” she continued, noting that amisulpride and aripiprazole “work well post menopause.”
Additional interventions may include changing to a depot or skin-patch antipsychotic that “obviates first-pass metabolism,” adding hormone replacement or a selective estrogen receptor modulator or including phytoestrogens (bioidenticals) in the diet.
The study yields research recommendations, including comparing the effectiveness of different antipsychotics in postmenopausal women with SSDs, recruiting pre- and postmenopausal women in trials of antipsychotic drugs, and stratifying by hormonal status when analyzing results of antipsychotic trials, Dr. Seeman said.
This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and the Academy of Finland. The Dutch Medical Research Association supported Dr. Sommer. Dr. Sommer declares no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Seeman declares no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
Viagra, Cialis, and Alzheimer’s risk: New data
The findings contradict results from a previous study that suggested that individuals who take sildenafil (Viagra) were significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer’s.
The new research, part of a larger effort to identify existing medications that could be repurposed to treat ADRD, employed a study design that reduced the risk for potential bias that may have influenced the earlier findings, the investigators note.
“That study came out last fall and was widely covered in the media, and we thought there were some methodological shortcomings that might have explained the results,” lead investigator Rishi Desai, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
The new study was published online in Brain Communications.
Not the final word?
Animal studies suggest that phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors, a drug class that includes the ED drugs sildenafil and tadalafil (Cialis), improve memory and cognitive function and reduce amyloid burden. But studies in humans have yielded conflicting results.*
Although the new research and the work published last year both drew on Medicare data, they examined different patient populations.
The first study compared those who took sildenafil for any reason to those who did not take it. That design likely resulted in an analysis of a comparison of individuals with ED – the most common indication for sildenafil – to generally older individuals with diabetes or hypertension, Dr. Desai said.
In contrast, the current study included only those with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), which is also an indication for PDE5 inhibitors. The researchers compared ADRD incidence in those who took PDE5 inhibitors with the incidence among those who took a different medication to treat their PAH. They used propensity matching to create two groups with similar characteristics and examined the data using four analytic strategies.
The investigators found no significant difference between groups in the incidence of ADRD, regardless of the strategy they used. Cell culture studies also revealed no protective effect from PDE5 inhibitors.
“No study of this kind should claim the final word,” Dr. Desai said. “It is extremely difficult to nail down causality from these types of data sources.”
Impressive study design
Commenting on the findings, David Knopman, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., described the study design as “impressive” for its efforts to minimize bias, a key limitation in the previous study.
“It was always the case that the claims about sildenafil needed further developmental work prior to testing the drug in randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Knopman said. “The evidence for the use of the drug was never sufficient for clinicians to use it in their patients.”
The study was funded by National Institute on Aging. Dr. Desai is an investigator who receives research grants from Bayer, Vertex, and Novartis that were given to the Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated projects. Dr. Knopman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 11/3/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the abbreviation for phosphodiesterase-5. It is PDE-5.
The findings contradict results from a previous study that suggested that individuals who take sildenafil (Viagra) were significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer’s.
The new research, part of a larger effort to identify existing medications that could be repurposed to treat ADRD, employed a study design that reduced the risk for potential bias that may have influenced the earlier findings, the investigators note.
“That study came out last fall and was widely covered in the media, and we thought there were some methodological shortcomings that might have explained the results,” lead investigator Rishi Desai, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
The new study was published online in Brain Communications.
Not the final word?
Animal studies suggest that phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors, a drug class that includes the ED drugs sildenafil and tadalafil (Cialis), improve memory and cognitive function and reduce amyloid burden. But studies in humans have yielded conflicting results.*
Although the new research and the work published last year both drew on Medicare data, they examined different patient populations.
The first study compared those who took sildenafil for any reason to those who did not take it. That design likely resulted in an analysis of a comparison of individuals with ED – the most common indication for sildenafil – to generally older individuals with diabetes or hypertension, Dr. Desai said.
In contrast, the current study included only those with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), which is also an indication for PDE5 inhibitors. The researchers compared ADRD incidence in those who took PDE5 inhibitors with the incidence among those who took a different medication to treat their PAH. They used propensity matching to create two groups with similar characteristics and examined the data using four analytic strategies.
The investigators found no significant difference between groups in the incidence of ADRD, regardless of the strategy they used. Cell culture studies also revealed no protective effect from PDE5 inhibitors.
“No study of this kind should claim the final word,” Dr. Desai said. “It is extremely difficult to nail down causality from these types of data sources.”
Impressive study design
Commenting on the findings, David Knopman, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., described the study design as “impressive” for its efforts to minimize bias, a key limitation in the previous study.
“It was always the case that the claims about sildenafil needed further developmental work prior to testing the drug in randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Knopman said. “The evidence for the use of the drug was never sufficient for clinicians to use it in their patients.”
The study was funded by National Institute on Aging. Dr. Desai is an investigator who receives research grants from Bayer, Vertex, and Novartis that were given to the Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated projects. Dr. Knopman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 11/3/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the abbreviation for phosphodiesterase-5. It is PDE-5.
The findings contradict results from a previous study that suggested that individuals who take sildenafil (Viagra) were significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer’s.
The new research, part of a larger effort to identify existing medications that could be repurposed to treat ADRD, employed a study design that reduced the risk for potential bias that may have influenced the earlier findings, the investigators note.
“That study came out last fall and was widely covered in the media, and we thought there were some methodological shortcomings that might have explained the results,” lead investigator Rishi Desai, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
The new study was published online in Brain Communications.
Not the final word?
Animal studies suggest that phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors, a drug class that includes the ED drugs sildenafil and tadalafil (Cialis), improve memory and cognitive function and reduce amyloid burden. But studies in humans have yielded conflicting results.*
Although the new research and the work published last year both drew on Medicare data, they examined different patient populations.
The first study compared those who took sildenafil for any reason to those who did not take it. That design likely resulted in an analysis of a comparison of individuals with ED – the most common indication for sildenafil – to generally older individuals with diabetes or hypertension, Dr. Desai said.
In contrast, the current study included only those with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), which is also an indication for PDE5 inhibitors. The researchers compared ADRD incidence in those who took PDE5 inhibitors with the incidence among those who took a different medication to treat their PAH. They used propensity matching to create two groups with similar characteristics and examined the data using four analytic strategies.
The investigators found no significant difference between groups in the incidence of ADRD, regardless of the strategy they used. Cell culture studies also revealed no protective effect from PDE5 inhibitors.
“No study of this kind should claim the final word,” Dr. Desai said. “It is extremely difficult to nail down causality from these types of data sources.”
Impressive study design
Commenting on the findings, David Knopman, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., described the study design as “impressive” for its efforts to minimize bias, a key limitation in the previous study.
“It was always the case that the claims about sildenafil needed further developmental work prior to testing the drug in randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Knopman said. “The evidence for the use of the drug was never sufficient for clinicians to use it in their patients.”
The study was funded by National Institute on Aging. Dr. Desai is an investigator who receives research grants from Bayer, Vertex, and Novartis that were given to the Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated projects. Dr. Knopman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 11/3/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the abbreviation for phosphodiesterase-5. It is PDE-5.
FROM BRAIN COMMUNICATIONS
Listen up: Birdsong may calm anxiety, paranoia
Investigators found that people who listened to recordings of birds singing experienced a significant reduction in anxiety and paranoia. In contrast, the researchers also found that recordings of traffic noises, including car engines, sirens, and construction, increased depressive states.
“The results suggest that it may be worthwhile to investigate the targeted use of natural sounds such as birdsong in a clinical setting – for example, in hospital waiting rooms or in psychiatric settings,” study investigator Emil Stobbe, MSc, a predoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, said in an interview.
“If someone is seeking an easily accessible intervention to lower distress, listening to an audio clip of birds singing might be a great option,” he added.
The study was published online in Scientific Reports.
Nature’s calming effect
The aim of the research was “to investigate how the physical environment impact brain and mental health,” Mr. Stobbe said.
Mr. Stobbe said that there is significantly more research examining visual properties of the physical environment but that the auditory domain is not as well researched, although, he added, that the beneficial effects of interactions with nature are “well studied.”
He noted that anxiety and paranoia can be experienced by many individuals even though they may be unaware that they are experiencing these states.
“We wanted to investigate if the beneficial effects of nature can also exert their impact on these states. In theory, birds can be representational for natural and vital environment, which, in turn, transfer the positive effects of nature on birdsong listeners,” he said.
A previous study compared nature versus city soundscape conditions and showed that the nature soundscape improved participants’ cognitive performance but did not improve mood. The present study added diversity to the soundscapes and focused not only on cognition and general mood but also on state paranoia, “which can be measured in a change-sensitive manner” and “has been shown to increase in response to traffic noise.”
The researchers hypothesized that birdsong would have a greater beneficial effect on mood and paranoia and on cognitive performance compared with traffic noise. They also investigated whether greater versus lower diversity of bird species or noise sources within the soundscapes “would be a relevant factor modulating the effects.”
The researchers recruited participants (n = 295) from a crowdsourcing platform. Participants’ mean age was late 20s (standard deviations ranged from 6.30 to 7.72), with a greater proportion of male versus female participants.
To be included, participants were required to have no history of mental illness, hearing difficulties, substance/drug intake, or suicidal thoughts/tendencies.
The outcomes of interest (mood, paranoia, cognitive performance) were measured before and after soundscape exposure and each soundscape had a low- versus high-diversity version. This resulted in several analyses that compared two types of sounds (birdsongs vs. traffic noise) x two levels of diversity (low vs. high diversity) and two time points (pre- vs. post exposure).
The exposure to sounds lasted for 6 minutes, after which they were asked to report (on a 0-100 visual scale) how diverse/monotone, beautiful, and pleasant they perceived the soundscape to be.
Reduction in depressive symptoms
Participants were divided into four groups: low-diversity traffic noise soundscape (n = 83), high-diversity traffic noise soundscape (n = 60), low-diversity birdsong soundscape (n = 63), and high-diversity birdsong soundscape (n = 80)
In addition to listening to the sounds, participants completed questionnaires measuring mood (depression and anxiety) and paranoia as well as a test of digit span cognitive performance (both the forward and the backward versions).
The type, diversity, and type x diversity all revealed significant effect sizes (F[3, 276] = 78.6; P < .001; eta-squared = 0.461; F[3, 276] = 3.16; P = .025; eta-squared = 0.033; and F[3, 276] = 2.66; P = .028, respectively), “suggesting that all of these factors, as well as their interaction, had a significant impact on the perception of soundscapes (that is, ratings on monotony/diversity, beauty, and pleasantness).”
A post hoc examination showed that depressive symptoms significantly increased within the low- and high-diversity urban soundscapes but decreased significantly in the high-diversity birdsong soundscapes (T[1, 60] = –2.57; P = .012; d = –0.29).
For anxiety, the post hoc within-group analyses found no effects within low- and high-diversity traffic noise conditions (T[1, 82] = –1.37; P = .174; d = –0.15 and T[1, 68] = 0.49; P = .629; d = 0.06, respectively). By contrast, there were significant declines in both birdsong conditions (low diversity: T[1, 62] = –6.13; P < .001; d = –0.77; high diversity: T[1, 60] = –6.32; P < .001; d = –0.70).
Similarly, there were no changes in participants with paranoia when they listened to either low- or high-diversity traffic noises (T[1, 82] = –0.55; P = .583; d = –0.06 and T[1, 68] = 0.67; P = .507; d = 0.08, respectively). On the other hand, both birdsong conditions yielded reductions in paranoia (low diversity: T[1, 62] = –5.90; P < .001; d = –0.74; high diversity: T[1, 60] = –4.11; P < .001; d = –0.46).
None of the soundscapes had any effect on cognition.
“In theory, birds can be representational for natural and vital environments which, in turn, transfer the positive effects of nature on birdsong listeners,” said Mr. Stobbe.
“Taken together, the findings of the current study provide another facet of why interactions with nature can be beneficial for our mental health, and it is highly important to preserve nature,” he added.
Mr. Stobbe said that future research should focus on investigating mixed soundscapes including examining whether the presence of natural sounds in urban settings lower stressors such as traffic noise.
An understudied area
Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness called the study “interesting but limited.”
Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved in the research said that the “benefits of nature are understudied” and agreed with the investigators that it is potentially important to study the use of birdsongs in psychiatric facilities. “Future studies could also correlate the role of birdsong with the mental health benefits/aspects of ‘being in nature,’ which has been found to have some effect.”
Open Access funding was enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors and Dr. Duckworth declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that people who listened to recordings of birds singing experienced a significant reduction in anxiety and paranoia. In contrast, the researchers also found that recordings of traffic noises, including car engines, sirens, and construction, increased depressive states.
“The results suggest that it may be worthwhile to investigate the targeted use of natural sounds such as birdsong in a clinical setting – for example, in hospital waiting rooms or in psychiatric settings,” study investigator Emil Stobbe, MSc, a predoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, said in an interview.
“If someone is seeking an easily accessible intervention to lower distress, listening to an audio clip of birds singing might be a great option,” he added.
The study was published online in Scientific Reports.
Nature’s calming effect
The aim of the research was “to investigate how the physical environment impact brain and mental health,” Mr. Stobbe said.
Mr. Stobbe said that there is significantly more research examining visual properties of the physical environment but that the auditory domain is not as well researched, although, he added, that the beneficial effects of interactions with nature are “well studied.”
He noted that anxiety and paranoia can be experienced by many individuals even though they may be unaware that they are experiencing these states.
“We wanted to investigate if the beneficial effects of nature can also exert their impact on these states. In theory, birds can be representational for natural and vital environment, which, in turn, transfer the positive effects of nature on birdsong listeners,” he said.
A previous study compared nature versus city soundscape conditions and showed that the nature soundscape improved participants’ cognitive performance but did not improve mood. The present study added diversity to the soundscapes and focused not only on cognition and general mood but also on state paranoia, “which can be measured in a change-sensitive manner” and “has been shown to increase in response to traffic noise.”
The researchers hypothesized that birdsong would have a greater beneficial effect on mood and paranoia and on cognitive performance compared with traffic noise. They also investigated whether greater versus lower diversity of bird species or noise sources within the soundscapes “would be a relevant factor modulating the effects.”
The researchers recruited participants (n = 295) from a crowdsourcing platform. Participants’ mean age was late 20s (standard deviations ranged from 6.30 to 7.72), with a greater proportion of male versus female participants.
To be included, participants were required to have no history of mental illness, hearing difficulties, substance/drug intake, or suicidal thoughts/tendencies.
The outcomes of interest (mood, paranoia, cognitive performance) were measured before and after soundscape exposure and each soundscape had a low- versus high-diversity version. This resulted in several analyses that compared two types of sounds (birdsongs vs. traffic noise) x two levels of diversity (low vs. high diversity) and two time points (pre- vs. post exposure).
The exposure to sounds lasted for 6 minutes, after which they were asked to report (on a 0-100 visual scale) how diverse/monotone, beautiful, and pleasant they perceived the soundscape to be.
Reduction in depressive symptoms
Participants were divided into four groups: low-diversity traffic noise soundscape (n = 83), high-diversity traffic noise soundscape (n = 60), low-diversity birdsong soundscape (n = 63), and high-diversity birdsong soundscape (n = 80)
In addition to listening to the sounds, participants completed questionnaires measuring mood (depression and anxiety) and paranoia as well as a test of digit span cognitive performance (both the forward and the backward versions).
The type, diversity, and type x diversity all revealed significant effect sizes (F[3, 276] = 78.6; P < .001; eta-squared = 0.461; F[3, 276] = 3.16; P = .025; eta-squared = 0.033; and F[3, 276] = 2.66; P = .028, respectively), “suggesting that all of these factors, as well as their interaction, had a significant impact on the perception of soundscapes (that is, ratings on monotony/diversity, beauty, and pleasantness).”
A post hoc examination showed that depressive symptoms significantly increased within the low- and high-diversity urban soundscapes but decreased significantly in the high-diversity birdsong soundscapes (T[1, 60] = –2.57; P = .012; d = –0.29).
For anxiety, the post hoc within-group analyses found no effects within low- and high-diversity traffic noise conditions (T[1, 82] = –1.37; P = .174; d = –0.15 and T[1, 68] = 0.49; P = .629; d = 0.06, respectively). By contrast, there were significant declines in both birdsong conditions (low diversity: T[1, 62] = –6.13; P < .001; d = –0.77; high diversity: T[1, 60] = –6.32; P < .001; d = –0.70).
Similarly, there were no changes in participants with paranoia when they listened to either low- or high-diversity traffic noises (T[1, 82] = –0.55; P = .583; d = –0.06 and T[1, 68] = 0.67; P = .507; d = 0.08, respectively). On the other hand, both birdsong conditions yielded reductions in paranoia (low diversity: T[1, 62] = –5.90; P < .001; d = –0.74; high diversity: T[1, 60] = –4.11; P < .001; d = –0.46).
None of the soundscapes had any effect on cognition.
“In theory, birds can be representational for natural and vital environments which, in turn, transfer the positive effects of nature on birdsong listeners,” said Mr. Stobbe.
“Taken together, the findings of the current study provide another facet of why interactions with nature can be beneficial for our mental health, and it is highly important to preserve nature,” he added.
Mr. Stobbe said that future research should focus on investigating mixed soundscapes including examining whether the presence of natural sounds in urban settings lower stressors such as traffic noise.
An understudied area
Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness called the study “interesting but limited.”
Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved in the research said that the “benefits of nature are understudied” and agreed with the investigators that it is potentially important to study the use of birdsongs in psychiatric facilities. “Future studies could also correlate the role of birdsong with the mental health benefits/aspects of ‘being in nature,’ which has been found to have some effect.”
Open Access funding was enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors and Dr. Duckworth declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that people who listened to recordings of birds singing experienced a significant reduction in anxiety and paranoia. In contrast, the researchers also found that recordings of traffic noises, including car engines, sirens, and construction, increased depressive states.
“The results suggest that it may be worthwhile to investigate the targeted use of natural sounds such as birdsong in a clinical setting – for example, in hospital waiting rooms or in psychiatric settings,” study investigator Emil Stobbe, MSc, a predoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, said in an interview.
“If someone is seeking an easily accessible intervention to lower distress, listening to an audio clip of birds singing might be a great option,” he added.
The study was published online in Scientific Reports.
Nature’s calming effect
The aim of the research was “to investigate how the physical environment impact brain and mental health,” Mr. Stobbe said.
Mr. Stobbe said that there is significantly more research examining visual properties of the physical environment but that the auditory domain is not as well researched, although, he added, that the beneficial effects of interactions with nature are “well studied.”
He noted that anxiety and paranoia can be experienced by many individuals even though they may be unaware that they are experiencing these states.
“We wanted to investigate if the beneficial effects of nature can also exert their impact on these states. In theory, birds can be representational for natural and vital environment, which, in turn, transfer the positive effects of nature on birdsong listeners,” he said.
A previous study compared nature versus city soundscape conditions and showed that the nature soundscape improved participants’ cognitive performance but did not improve mood. The present study added diversity to the soundscapes and focused not only on cognition and general mood but also on state paranoia, “which can be measured in a change-sensitive manner” and “has been shown to increase in response to traffic noise.”
The researchers hypothesized that birdsong would have a greater beneficial effect on mood and paranoia and on cognitive performance compared with traffic noise. They also investigated whether greater versus lower diversity of bird species or noise sources within the soundscapes “would be a relevant factor modulating the effects.”
The researchers recruited participants (n = 295) from a crowdsourcing platform. Participants’ mean age was late 20s (standard deviations ranged from 6.30 to 7.72), with a greater proportion of male versus female participants.
To be included, participants were required to have no history of mental illness, hearing difficulties, substance/drug intake, or suicidal thoughts/tendencies.
The outcomes of interest (mood, paranoia, cognitive performance) were measured before and after soundscape exposure and each soundscape had a low- versus high-diversity version. This resulted in several analyses that compared two types of sounds (birdsongs vs. traffic noise) x two levels of diversity (low vs. high diversity) and two time points (pre- vs. post exposure).
The exposure to sounds lasted for 6 minutes, after which they were asked to report (on a 0-100 visual scale) how diverse/monotone, beautiful, and pleasant they perceived the soundscape to be.
Reduction in depressive symptoms
Participants were divided into four groups: low-diversity traffic noise soundscape (n = 83), high-diversity traffic noise soundscape (n = 60), low-diversity birdsong soundscape (n = 63), and high-diversity birdsong soundscape (n = 80)
In addition to listening to the sounds, participants completed questionnaires measuring mood (depression and anxiety) and paranoia as well as a test of digit span cognitive performance (both the forward and the backward versions).
The type, diversity, and type x diversity all revealed significant effect sizes (F[3, 276] = 78.6; P < .001; eta-squared = 0.461; F[3, 276] = 3.16; P = .025; eta-squared = 0.033; and F[3, 276] = 2.66; P = .028, respectively), “suggesting that all of these factors, as well as their interaction, had a significant impact on the perception of soundscapes (that is, ratings on monotony/diversity, beauty, and pleasantness).”
A post hoc examination showed that depressive symptoms significantly increased within the low- and high-diversity urban soundscapes but decreased significantly in the high-diversity birdsong soundscapes (T[1, 60] = –2.57; P = .012; d = –0.29).
For anxiety, the post hoc within-group analyses found no effects within low- and high-diversity traffic noise conditions (T[1, 82] = –1.37; P = .174; d = –0.15 and T[1, 68] = 0.49; P = .629; d = 0.06, respectively). By contrast, there were significant declines in both birdsong conditions (low diversity: T[1, 62] = –6.13; P < .001; d = –0.77; high diversity: T[1, 60] = –6.32; P < .001; d = –0.70).
Similarly, there were no changes in participants with paranoia when they listened to either low- or high-diversity traffic noises (T[1, 82] = –0.55; P = .583; d = –0.06 and T[1, 68] = 0.67; P = .507; d = 0.08, respectively). On the other hand, both birdsong conditions yielded reductions in paranoia (low diversity: T[1, 62] = –5.90; P < .001; d = –0.74; high diversity: T[1, 60] = –4.11; P < .001; d = –0.46).
None of the soundscapes had any effect on cognition.
“In theory, birds can be representational for natural and vital environments which, in turn, transfer the positive effects of nature on birdsong listeners,” said Mr. Stobbe.
“Taken together, the findings of the current study provide another facet of why interactions with nature can be beneficial for our mental health, and it is highly important to preserve nature,” he added.
Mr. Stobbe said that future research should focus on investigating mixed soundscapes including examining whether the presence of natural sounds in urban settings lower stressors such as traffic noise.
An understudied area
Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness called the study “interesting but limited.”
Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved in the research said that the “benefits of nature are understudied” and agreed with the investigators that it is potentially important to study the use of birdsongs in psychiatric facilities. “Future studies could also correlate the role of birdsong with the mental health benefits/aspects of ‘being in nature,’ which has been found to have some effect.”
Open Access funding was enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors and Dr. Duckworth declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Brussels terror attack victim euthanized in Belgium at age 23
This article was originally published on MediQuality.com, an online service for health care professionals in the Benelux and a member of the Medscape Professional Network.
Performing euthanasia for “mental suffering that cannot be alleviated” is still considered an extraordinary measure in Belgium. Indeed, fewer than 2% of the requests for euthanasia fall within that category, and few such requests are made by young patients.
to be applicable. It’s something that Belgian broadcaster RTBF brought up during a recent episode of #Investigation, which reported on the aftermath of the 2016 Brussels attacks.
On May 7, surrounded by her family, Ms. De Corte was euthanized. She was 23 years old. Six years earlier, on March 22, 2016, Ms. De Corte had been at Brussels Airport when terrorists set off bombs. She was in the departures area with 90 other students from Sint-Rita Campus College, located in the northern town of Kontich. Ms. De Corte was only a few meters away from the blast. Although she was not physically injured, the Flemish teen was traumatized by the attack. This was confirmed by the school psychologist who treated the students. “There were some students who reacted worse than others to these traumatic events. And having had two discussions with Shanti, I can tell you that she was one of these students who were more sensitive to the effects. To me, it’s quite clear. Even before the attacks, she’d experienced serious psychological issues. Therefore, I referred her for psychiatric care.”
Eleven antidepressants daily
A few weeks after that March day, Ms. De Corte was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Antwerp. It was a place she knew well, having been an inpatient there several times before the attacks. Ms. De Corte was treated with antidepressants. She shared her thoughts about them on numerous occasions. “I get several drugs at breakfast and up to 11 antidepressants a day. I couldn’t do without them. With all the drugs I take, I feel like a ghost who doesn’t feel anything anymore. Perhaps there were solutions other than the drugs.”
It was a brief respite. In 2020, Ms. De Corte attempted suicide. Her spirits were at their lowest. She was heavily medicated, and her medication had been increased over time. She turned down therapeutic help that was offered by a therapist who specializes in treating the victims of the Brussels attacks. The student got in touch with the Life End Information Forum, an association that supports the right to die with dignity. In April 2022, Ms. De Corte submitted a new euthanasia request, stating that she was in a medically futile condition of mental suffering. Two psychiatrists granted their approval.
A small proportion
Last March, Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia reported on data from 2021. “There continues to be a very small number of euthanasia requests that cite mental and behavioral disorders (psychiatric conditions, such as personality disorders, and cognitive issues, like Alzheimer’s disease, are included in this group): 1.9% of all cases of euthanasia. Like all euthanasia files, these requests meet the legal conditions (the patient is legally competent, the request is in writing, the condition is medically futile, and the suffering – which is constant, unbearable, and cannot be alleviated – results from a serious and incurable disorder; the request is well-considered and repeated),” the report states.
This article was translated from MediQuality and appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on MediQuality.com, an online service for health care professionals in the Benelux and a member of the Medscape Professional Network.
Performing euthanasia for “mental suffering that cannot be alleviated” is still considered an extraordinary measure in Belgium. Indeed, fewer than 2% of the requests for euthanasia fall within that category, and few such requests are made by young patients.
to be applicable. It’s something that Belgian broadcaster RTBF brought up during a recent episode of #Investigation, which reported on the aftermath of the 2016 Brussels attacks.
On May 7, surrounded by her family, Ms. De Corte was euthanized. She was 23 years old. Six years earlier, on March 22, 2016, Ms. De Corte had been at Brussels Airport when terrorists set off bombs. She was in the departures area with 90 other students from Sint-Rita Campus College, located in the northern town of Kontich. Ms. De Corte was only a few meters away from the blast. Although she was not physically injured, the Flemish teen was traumatized by the attack. This was confirmed by the school psychologist who treated the students. “There were some students who reacted worse than others to these traumatic events. And having had two discussions with Shanti, I can tell you that she was one of these students who were more sensitive to the effects. To me, it’s quite clear. Even before the attacks, she’d experienced serious psychological issues. Therefore, I referred her for psychiatric care.”
Eleven antidepressants daily
A few weeks after that March day, Ms. De Corte was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Antwerp. It was a place she knew well, having been an inpatient there several times before the attacks. Ms. De Corte was treated with antidepressants. She shared her thoughts about them on numerous occasions. “I get several drugs at breakfast and up to 11 antidepressants a day. I couldn’t do without them. With all the drugs I take, I feel like a ghost who doesn’t feel anything anymore. Perhaps there were solutions other than the drugs.”
It was a brief respite. In 2020, Ms. De Corte attempted suicide. Her spirits were at their lowest. She was heavily medicated, and her medication had been increased over time. She turned down therapeutic help that was offered by a therapist who specializes in treating the victims of the Brussels attacks. The student got in touch with the Life End Information Forum, an association that supports the right to die with dignity. In April 2022, Ms. De Corte submitted a new euthanasia request, stating that she was in a medically futile condition of mental suffering. Two psychiatrists granted their approval.
A small proportion
Last March, Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia reported on data from 2021. “There continues to be a very small number of euthanasia requests that cite mental and behavioral disorders (psychiatric conditions, such as personality disorders, and cognitive issues, like Alzheimer’s disease, are included in this group): 1.9% of all cases of euthanasia. Like all euthanasia files, these requests meet the legal conditions (the patient is legally competent, the request is in writing, the condition is medically futile, and the suffering – which is constant, unbearable, and cannot be alleviated – results from a serious and incurable disorder; the request is well-considered and repeated),” the report states.
This article was translated from MediQuality and appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on MediQuality.com, an online service for health care professionals in the Benelux and a member of the Medscape Professional Network.
Performing euthanasia for “mental suffering that cannot be alleviated” is still considered an extraordinary measure in Belgium. Indeed, fewer than 2% of the requests for euthanasia fall within that category, and few such requests are made by young patients.
to be applicable. It’s something that Belgian broadcaster RTBF brought up during a recent episode of #Investigation, which reported on the aftermath of the 2016 Brussels attacks.
On May 7, surrounded by her family, Ms. De Corte was euthanized. She was 23 years old. Six years earlier, on March 22, 2016, Ms. De Corte had been at Brussels Airport when terrorists set off bombs. She was in the departures area with 90 other students from Sint-Rita Campus College, located in the northern town of Kontich. Ms. De Corte was only a few meters away from the blast. Although she was not physically injured, the Flemish teen was traumatized by the attack. This was confirmed by the school psychologist who treated the students. “There were some students who reacted worse than others to these traumatic events. And having had two discussions with Shanti, I can tell you that she was one of these students who were more sensitive to the effects. To me, it’s quite clear. Even before the attacks, she’d experienced serious psychological issues. Therefore, I referred her for psychiatric care.”
Eleven antidepressants daily
A few weeks after that March day, Ms. De Corte was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Antwerp. It was a place she knew well, having been an inpatient there several times before the attacks. Ms. De Corte was treated with antidepressants. She shared her thoughts about them on numerous occasions. “I get several drugs at breakfast and up to 11 antidepressants a day. I couldn’t do without them. With all the drugs I take, I feel like a ghost who doesn’t feel anything anymore. Perhaps there were solutions other than the drugs.”
It was a brief respite. In 2020, Ms. De Corte attempted suicide. Her spirits were at their lowest. She was heavily medicated, and her medication had been increased over time. She turned down therapeutic help that was offered by a therapist who specializes in treating the victims of the Brussels attacks. The student got in touch with the Life End Information Forum, an association that supports the right to die with dignity. In April 2022, Ms. De Corte submitted a new euthanasia request, stating that she was in a medically futile condition of mental suffering. Two psychiatrists granted their approval.
A small proportion
Last March, Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia reported on data from 2021. “There continues to be a very small number of euthanasia requests that cite mental and behavioral disorders (psychiatric conditions, such as personality disorders, and cognitive issues, like Alzheimer’s disease, are included in this group): 1.9% of all cases of euthanasia. Like all euthanasia files, these requests meet the legal conditions (the patient is legally competent, the request is in writing, the condition is medically futile, and the suffering – which is constant, unbearable, and cannot be alleviated – results from a serious and incurable disorder; the request is well-considered and repeated),” the report states.
This article was translated from MediQuality and appeared on Medscape.com.
How can I keep from losing my mind?
A) Thiamine
B) Vitamin E
C) Multivitamin (MV)
D) Keto diet
E) Red wine
FDA-approved therapies for dementia
To date the actual therapies for dementia have been disappointing. Donepezil, the most prescribed medication for the treatment of dementia has a number-needed-to treat (NNT) over 17, and causes frequent side effects. Aducanumab was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but controversy has arisen, as the clinical results were modest, and the price tag will be large – estimated at $30,000-$50,000/year.
Preventive options that may decrease the likelihood of dementia
Patients often ask the question stated above. Regarding how to respond to that question, choice C, MV, has some recent evidence of benefit. Baker and colleagues studied the effect of cocoa extract and multivitamins on cognitive function in the COSMOS-Mind trial.1 A total of 2,262 people were enrolled, and over 90% completed baseline and at least one annual cognitive assessment. Cocoa extract had no impact on global cognition (confidence interval [CI], –.02-.08, P = .28), but MV supplementation did have a statistically significant impact on global cognition (CI, .02-.12, P less than .007).
Vitamin E has been enthusiastically endorsed in the past as a treatment to prevent cognitive decline. The most recent Cochrane review on vitamin E concluded there was no evidence that the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E given to people with MCI prevents progression to dementia, or that it improves cognitive function in people with MCI or dementia due to AD.2
Exercise has long been a mainstay of our advice to patients as something they can do to help prevent dementia. Yu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of almost 400 randomized controlled trials and observational studies to grade the evidence on different interventions.3 They gave exercise a grade B for evidence of benefit.
A recent study addressed this issue, and I think it is helpful on quantifying how much exercise is needed. Del Pozo Cruz and colleagues did a prospective population-based cohort study of 78,000 adults aged 40-79, with an average of 6.9 years of follow up.4 The optimal step count was 9,826 steps (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.62) and the minimal step count for benefit was 3,826 steps (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83).
Modifiable factors
The other major modifiable factors to consider are problems with special senses. Both vision loss and hearing loss have been associated with cognitive impairment.
Shang and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 14 cohort studies addressing vision impairment and cognitive function involving more than 6 million individuals.5 They concluded that vision impairment is associated with an increased risk of both dementia and cognitive impairment in older adults.
Loughrey and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 36 studies addressing hearing loss and cognitive decline.6 They reported that, among cross-sectional studies, a significant association was found for cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39-2.89) and dementia (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.24-4.72). A similar finding was present in prospective cohort studies with a significant association being found for cognitive impairment (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36) and dementia (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59).
A 25-year prospective, population-based study of patients with hearing loss revealed a difference in the rate of change in MMSE score over the 25-year follow-up between participants with hearing loss not using hearing aids matched with controls who didn’t have hearing loss. Those with untreated hearing loss had more cognitive decline than that of patients without hearing loss.7 The subjects with hearing loss using a hearing aid had no difference in cognitive decline from controls.
Pearl
Several simple and safe interventions may protect our patients from cognitive decline. These include taking a daily multivitamin, walking more than 4,000 steps a day, and optimizing vision and hearing.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Baker LD et al. Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: A randomized clinical trial. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022 Sep 14. doi: 10.1002/alz.12767.
2. Farina N et al. Vitamin E for Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 18;4(4):CD002854. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002854.pub5.
3. Yu JT et al. Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;91(11):1201-9.
4. Del Pozo Cruz B et al. Association of daily step count and intensity with incident dementia in 78,430 adults living in the UK. JAMA Neurol. 2022 Oct 1;79(10):1059-63.
5. Shang X et al. The association between vision impairment and incidence of dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2021 Aug;128(8):1135-49.
6. Loughrey DG et al. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 1;144(2):115-26.
7. Amieva H et al. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: A 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Oct;63(10):2099-104.
A) Thiamine
B) Vitamin E
C) Multivitamin (MV)
D) Keto diet
E) Red wine
FDA-approved therapies for dementia
To date the actual therapies for dementia have been disappointing. Donepezil, the most prescribed medication for the treatment of dementia has a number-needed-to treat (NNT) over 17, and causes frequent side effects. Aducanumab was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but controversy has arisen, as the clinical results were modest, and the price tag will be large – estimated at $30,000-$50,000/year.
Preventive options that may decrease the likelihood of dementia
Patients often ask the question stated above. Regarding how to respond to that question, choice C, MV, has some recent evidence of benefit. Baker and colleagues studied the effect of cocoa extract and multivitamins on cognitive function in the COSMOS-Mind trial.1 A total of 2,262 people were enrolled, and over 90% completed baseline and at least one annual cognitive assessment. Cocoa extract had no impact on global cognition (confidence interval [CI], –.02-.08, P = .28), but MV supplementation did have a statistically significant impact on global cognition (CI, .02-.12, P less than .007).
Vitamin E has been enthusiastically endorsed in the past as a treatment to prevent cognitive decline. The most recent Cochrane review on vitamin E concluded there was no evidence that the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E given to people with MCI prevents progression to dementia, or that it improves cognitive function in people with MCI or dementia due to AD.2
Exercise has long been a mainstay of our advice to patients as something they can do to help prevent dementia. Yu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of almost 400 randomized controlled trials and observational studies to grade the evidence on different interventions.3 They gave exercise a grade B for evidence of benefit.
A recent study addressed this issue, and I think it is helpful on quantifying how much exercise is needed. Del Pozo Cruz and colleagues did a prospective population-based cohort study of 78,000 adults aged 40-79, with an average of 6.9 years of follow up.4 The optimal step count was 9,826 steps (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.62) and the minimal step count for benefit was 3,826 steps (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83).
Modifiable factors
The other major modifiable factors to consider are problems with special senses. Both vision loss and hearing loss have been associated with cognitive impairment.
Shang and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 14 cohort studies addressing vision impairment and cognitive function involving more than 6 million individuals.5 They concluded that vision impairment is associated with an increased risk of both dementia and cognitive impairment in older adults.
Loughrey and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 36 studies addressing hearing loss and cognitive decline.6 They reported that, among cross-sectional studies, a significant association was found for cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39-2.89) and dementia (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.24-4.72). A similar finding was present in prospective cohort studies with a significant association being found for cognitive impairment (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36) and dementia (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59).
A 25-year prospective, population-based study of patients with hearing loss revealed a difference in the rate of change in MMSE score over the 25-year follow-up between participants with hearing loss not using hearing aids matched with controls who didn’t have hearing loss. Those with untreated hearing loss had more cognitive decline than that of patients without hearing loss.7 The subjects with hearing loss using a hearing aid had no difference in cognitive decline from controls.
Pearl
Several simple and safe interventions may protect our patients from cognitive decline. These include taking a daily multivitamin, walking more than 4,000 steps a day, and optimizing vision and hearing.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Baker LD et al. Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: A randomized clinical trial. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022 Sep 14. doi: 10.1002/alz.12767.
2. Farina N et al. Vitamin E for Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 18;4(4):CD002854. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002854.pub5.
3. Yu JT et al. Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;91(11):1201-9.
4. Del Pozo Cruz B et al. Association of daily step count and intensity with incident dementia in 78,430 adults living in the UK. JAMA Neurol. 2022 Oct 1;79(10):1059-63.
5. Shang X et al. The association between vision impairment and incidence of dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2021 Aug;128(8):1135-49.
6. Loughrey DG et al. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 1;144(2):115-26.
7. Amieva H et al. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: A 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Oct;63(10):2099-104.
A) Thiamine
B) Vitamin E
C) Multivitamin (MV)
D) Keto diet
E) Red wine
FDA-approved therapies for dementia
To date the actual therapies for dementia have been disappointing. Donepezil, the most prescribed medication for the treatment of dementia has a number-needed-to treat (NNT) over 17, and causes frequent side effects. Aducanumab was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but controversy has arisen, as the clinical results were modest, and the price tag will be large – estimated at $30,000-$50,000/year.
Preventive options that may decrease the likelihood of dementia
Patients often ask the question stated above. Regarding how to respond to that question, choice C, MV, has some recent evidence of benefit. Baker and colleagues studied the effect of cocoa extract and multivitamins on cognitive function in the COSMOS-Mind trial.1 A total of 2,262 people were enrolled, and over 90% completed baseline and at least one annual cognitive assessment. Cocoa extract had no impact on global cognition (confidence interval [CI], –.02-.08, P = .28), but MV supplementation did have a statistically significant impact on global cognition (CI, .02-.12, P less than .007).
Vitamin E has been enthusiastically endorsed in the past as a treatment to prevent cognitive decline. The most recent Cochrane review on vitamin E concluded there was no evidence that the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E given to people with MCI prevents progression to dementia, or that it improves cognitive function in people with MCI or dementia due to AD.2
Exercise has long been a mainstay of our advice to patients as something they can do to help prevent dementia. Yu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of almost 400 randomized controlled trials and observational studies to grade the evidence on different interventions.3 They gave exercise a grade B for evidence of benefit.
A recent study addressed this issue, and I think it is helpful on quantifying how much exercise is needed. Del Pozo Cruz and colleagues did a prospective population-based cohort study of 78,000 adults aged 40-79, with an average of 6.9 years of follow up.4 The optimal step count was 9,826 steps (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.62) and the minimal step count for benefit was 3,826 steps (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83).
Modifiable factors
The other major modifiable factors to consider are problems with special senses. Both vision loss and hearing loss have been associated with cognitive impairment.
Shang and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 14 cohort studies addressing vision impairment and cognitive function involving more than 6 million individuals.5 They concluded that vision impairment is associated with an increased risk of both dementia and cognitive impairment in older adults.
Loughrey and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 36 studies addressing hearing loss and cognitive decline.6 They reported that, among cross-sectional studies, a significant association was found for cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39-2.89) and dementia (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.24-4.72). A similar finding was present in prospective cohort studies with a significant association being found for cognitive impairment (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36) and dementia (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59).
A 25-year prospective, population-based study of patients with hearing loss revealed a difference in the rate of change in MMSE score over the 25-year follow-up between participants with hearing loss not using hearing aids matched with controls who didn’t have hearing loss. Those with untreated hearing loss had more cognitive decline than that of patients without hearing loss.7 The subjects with hearing loss using a hearing aid had no difference in cognitive decline from controls.
Pearl
Several simple and safe interventions may protect our patients from cognitive decline. These include taking a daily multivitamin, walking more than 4,000 steps a day, and optimizing vision and hearing.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Baker LD et al. Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: A randomized clinical trial. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022 Sep 14. doi: 10.1002/alz.12767.
2. Farina N et al. Vitamin E for Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 18;4(4):CD002854. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002854.pub5.
3. Yu JT et al. Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;91(11):1201-9.
4. Del Pozo Cruz B et al. Association of daily step count and intensity with incident dementia in 78,430 adults living in the UK. JAMA Neurol. 2022 Oct 1;79(10):1059-63.
5. Shang X et al. The association between vision impairment and incidence of dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2021 Aug;128(8):1135-49.
6. Loughrey DG et al. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 1;144(2):115-26.
7. Amieva H et al. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: A 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Oct;63(10):2099-104.
Four commonly abused drugs linked with atrial fibrillation
Cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and cannabis may independently increase risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), based on data from almost 24 million people.
While more work is needed to uncover causal links, physicians should be aware that these commonly abused substances could be driving new cases of AFib, reported investigators from the University of California, San Francisco.
“Though alcohol and tobacco smoking have each been associated with a heightened risk of [AFib], relationships between other drug use and [AFib] are poorly understood,” they wrote in European Heart Journal.
Some previous studies have ventured into this terrain, but most focused on fatal arrhythmias, or offered anecdotal evidence. This knowledge gap is particularly concerning for cannabis, the researchers noted, as medical and recreational use are on the rise.
The present analysis included data from 23.5 million adults in California who received care through a hospital, emergency department, or outpatient surgery center during 2005-2015. Based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes, 132,834 of these patients used cannabis, 98,271 used methamphetamines, 48,701 used cocaine, and 10,032 used opiates. Inclusion required lack of AFib at baseline.
Reliance on ICD-9 codes makes the data “quite specific,” but lacking sensitivity, according to principal author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, cardiologist and professor of medicine at UCSF.
“If they were designated as using these drugs, that is very likely true,” Dr. Marcus said in an interview. “But certainly, the absence of any mention of use of these drugs does not exclude the possibility that some people were still using them. That would not create spurious false-positive relationships; if anything, it attenuates existing relationships.”
In other words, using ICD-9 codes reduced the power to detect an association between each drug and AFib, meaning any relationship needed to be sufficiently strong enough to generate a significant result.
At the end of the decade-long study period, 998,747 patients (4.2%) had developed incident AFib. After adjusting for potential confounders and mediators, all four drugs showed significant, independent associations with AFib. Methamphetamines presented the greatest risk (hazard ratio, 1.86%), followed by opiates (HR, 1.74), cocaine (HR, 1.61), and cannabis (HR, 1.35).
“Our findings provide the first evidence utilizing a longitudinal cohort to demonstrate that cannabis use predicts the future onset of AFib,” Dr. Marcus and colleagues wrote.
Dose-response relationships were not detected for any of the substances; however, usage levels were also derived from ICD-9 codes, which may have been insufficient for this purpose, according to the investigators.
Causal mechanisms deserve a closer look
Causal links between AFib and each of the drugs remain unclear. Citing prior research, Dr. Marcus and colleagues explained how methamphetamines are capable of “significant cardiac electrical remodeling,” while cocaine may cause sodium channel dysregulation, and opioids can render atrial myocytes more susceptible to oxidative damage. Although cannabis has previously been linked with hospitalization for arrhythmia, a pharmacologic driver of this phenomenon remains largely unexamined.
“We don’t know for sure precisely what the constituents are that are responsible for our findings,” Dr. Marcus said. “It’s possible that there are some effects that are much more generic, such as inhaling a burned substance. There is good evidence that if you inhale pretty much any sort of particulate matter, that increases inflammation in the body. Inflammation is known to be a trigger for atrial fibrillation.”
Alternatively, all four drugs – whether stimulants or depressants – cause “quite dramatic and often rapid effects on the autonomic nervous system,” Dr. Marcus said, noting that these rapid swings are a known trigger for AFib.
Brian Olshansky, MD, emeritus professor of internal medicine-cardiovascular medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, suggested that nonpharmacologic factors are likely also playing a role.
“All these drugs have slightly different mechanisms of action, so there’s not one mechanism that would explain why all of them would cause atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “That does suggest that there’s something else going on, besides just the drug itself. It would be potentially concerning if we were to lay the blame totally on these drugs.”
Dr. Olshansky, who recently coauthored a review of stimulant drugs and arrhythmias, suggested that lifestyle, comorbidities, and drug impurities may have added to the risk of AF.
“[The investigators] did try to correct for that kind of stuff, but it’s very hard to correct for a lot of the issues that may be ongoing with individuals who partake in these drugs,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “They may not be a healthy lot, in general.”
Still, considering previous data linking drugs of abuse with arrhythmias, he said the detected risks were “intriguing,” and deserved a closer look.
“It’s a nice groundbreaking study, with regard to the fact that they showed unique relationships that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Olshansky said. “It opens up a new opportunity for further investigation.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Olshansky disclosed no relevant competing interests.
Cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and cannabis may independently increase risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), based on data from almost 24 million people.
While more work is needed to uncover causal links, physicians should be aware that these commonly abused substances could be driving new cases of AFib, reported investigators from the University of California, San Francisco.
“Though alcohol and tobacco smoking have each been associated with a heightened risk of [AFib], relationships between other drug use and [AFib] are poorly understood,” they wrote in European Heart Journal.
Some previous studies have ventured into this terrain, but most focused on fatal arrhythmias, or offered anecdotal evidence. This knowledge gap is particularly concerning for cannabis, the researchers noted, as medical and recreational use are on the rise.
The present analysis included data from 23.5 million adults in California who received care through a hospital, emergency department, or outpatient surgery center during 2005-2015. Based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes, 132,834 of these patients used cannabis, 98,271 used methamphetamines, 48,701 used cocaine, and 10,032 used opiates. Inclusion required lack of AFib at baseline.
Reliance on ICD-9 codes makes the data “quite specific,” but lacking sensitivity, according to principal author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, cardiologist and professor of medicine at UCSF.
“If they were designated as using these drugs, that is very likely true,” Dr. Marcus said in an interview. “But certainly, the absence of any mention of use of these drugs does not exclude the possibility that some people were still using them. That would not create spurious false-positive relationships; if anything, it attenuates existing relationships.”
In other words, using ICD-9 codes reduced the power to detect an association between each drug and AFib, meaning any relationship needed to be sufficiently strong enough to generate a significant result.
At the end of the decade-long study period, 998,747 patients (4.2%) had developed incident AFib. After adjusting for potential confounders and mediators, all four drugs showed significant, independent associations with AFib. Methamphetamines presented the greatest risk (hazard ratio, 1.86%), followed by opiates (HR, 1.74), cocaine (HR, 1.61), and cannabis (HR, 1.35).
“Our findings provide the first evidence utilizing a longitudinal cohort to demonstrate that cannabis use predicts the future onset of AFib,” Dr. Marcus and colleagues wrote.
Dose-response relationships were not detected for any of the substances; however, usage levels were also derived from ICD-9 codes, which may have been insufficient for this purpose, according to the investigators.
Causal mechanisms deserve a closer look
Causal links between AFib and each of the drugs remain unclear. Citing prior research, Dr. Marcus and colleagues explained how methamphetamines are capable of “significant cardiac electrical remodeling,” while cocaine may cause sodium channel dysregulation, and opioids can render atrial myocytes more susceptible to oxidative damage. Although cannabis has previously been linked with hospitalization for arrhythmia, a pharmacologic driver of this phenomenon remains largely unexamined.
“We don’t know for sure precisely what the constituents are that are responsible for our findings,” Dr. Marcus said. “It’s possible that there are some effects that are much more generic, such as inhaling a burned substance. There is good evidence that if you inhale pretty much any sort of particulate matter, that increases inflammation in the body. Inflammation is known to be a trigger for atrial fibrillation.”
Alternatively, all four drugs – whether stimulants or depressants – cause “quite dramatic and often rapid effects on the autonomic nervous system,” Dr. Marcus said, noting that these rapid swings are a known trigger for AFib.
Brian Olshansky, MD, emeritus professor of internal medicine-cardiovascular medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, suggested that nonpharmacologic factors are likely also playing a role.
“All these drugs have slightly different mechanisms of action, so there’s not one mechanism that would explain why all of them would cause atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “That does suggest that there’s something else going on, besides just the drug itself. It would be potentially concerning if we were to lay the blame totally on these drugs.”
Dr. Olshansky, who recently coauthored a review of stimulant drugs and arrhythmias, suggested that lifestyle, comorbidities, and drug impurities may have added to the risk of AF.
“[The investigators] did try to correct for that kind of stuff, but it’s very hard to correct for a lot of the issues that may be ongoing with individuals who partake in these drugs,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “They may not be a healthy lot, in general.”
Still, considering previous data linking drugs of abuse with arrhythmias, he said the detected risks were “intriguing,” and deserved a closer look.
“It’s a nice groundbreaking study, with regard to the fact that they showed unique relationships that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Olshansky said. “It opens up a new opportunity for further investigation.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Olshansky disclosed no relevant competing interests.
Cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and cannabis may independently increase risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), based on data from almost 24 million people.
While more work is needed to uncover causal links, physicians should be aware that these commonly abused substances could be driving new cases of AFib, reported investigators from the University of California, San Francisco.
“Though alcohol and tobacco smoking have each been associated with a heightened risk of [AFib], relationships between other drug use and [AFib] are poorly understood,” they wrote in European Heart Journal.
Some previous studies have ventured into this terrain, but most focused on fatal arrhythmias, or offered anecdotal evidence. This knowledge gap is particularly concerning for cannabis, the researchers noted, as medical and recreational use are on the rise.
The present analysis included data from 23.5 million adults in California who received care through a hospital, emergency department, or outpatient surgery center during 2005-2015. Based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes, 132,834 of these patients used cannabis, 98,271 used methamphetamines, 48,701 used cocaine, and 10,032 used opiates. Inclusion required lack of AFib at baseline.
Reliance on ICD-9 codes makes the data “quite specific,” but lacking sensitivity, according to principal author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, cardiologist and professor of medicine at UCSF.
“If they were designated as using these drugs, that is very likely true,” Dr. Marcus said in an interview. “But certainly, the absence of any mention of use of these drugs does not exclude the possibility that some people were still using them. That would not create spurious false-positive relationships; if anything, it attenuates existing relationships.”
In other words, using ICD-9 codes reduced the power to detect an association between each drug and AFib, meaning any relationship needed to be sufficiently strong enough to generate a significant result.
At the end of the decade-long study period, 998,747 patients (4.2%) had developed incident AFib. After adjusting for potential confounders and mediators, all four drugs showed significant, independent associations with AFib. Methamphetamines presented the greatest risk (hazard ratio, 1.86%), followed by opiates (HR, 1.74), cocaine (HR, 1.61), and cannabis (HR, 1.35).
“Our findings provide the first evidence utilizing a longitudinal cohort to demonstrate that cannabis use predicts the future onset of AFib,” Dr. Marcus and colleagues wrote.
Dose-response relationships were not detected for any of the substances; however, usage levels were also derived from ICD-9 codes, which may have been insufficient for this purpose, according to the investigators.
Causal mechanisms deserve a closer look
Causal links between AFib and each of the drugs remain unclear. Citing prior research, Dr. Marcus and colleagues explained how methamphetamines are capable of “significant cardiac electrical remodeling,” while cocaine may cause sodium channel dysregulation, and opioids can render atrial myocytes more susceptible to oxidative damage. Although cannabis has previously been linked with hospitalization for arrhythmia, a pharmacologic driver of this phenomenon remains largely unexamined.
“We don’t know for sure precisely what the constituents are that are responsible for our findings,” Dr. Marcus said. “It’s possible that there are some effects that are much more generic, such as inhaling a burned substance. There is good evidence that if you inhale pretty much any sort of particulate matter, that increases inflammation in the body. Inflammation is known to be a trigger for atrial fibrillation.”
Alternatively, all four drugs – whether stimulants or depressants – cause “quite dramatic and often rapid effects on the autonomic nervous system,” Dr. Marcus said, noting that these rapid swings are a known trigger for AFib.
Brian Olshansky, MD, emeritus professor of internal medicine-cardiovascular medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, suggested that nonpharmacologic factors are likely also playing a role.
“All these drugs have slightly different mechanisms of action, so there’s not one mechanism that would explain why all of them would cause atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “That does suggest that there’s something else going on, besides just the drug itself. It would be potentially concerning if we were to lay the blame totally on these drugs.”
Dr. Olshansky, who recently coauthored a review of stimulant drugs and arrhythmias, suggested that lifestyle, comorbidities, and drug impurities may have added to the risk of AF.
“[The investigators] did try to correct for that kind of stuff, but it’s very hard to correct for a lot of the issues that may be ongoing with individuals who partake in these drugs,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “They may not be a healthy lot, in general.”
Still, considering previous data linking drugs of abuse with arrhythmias, he said the detected risks were “intriguing,” and deserved a closer look.
“It’s a nice groundbreaking study, with regard to the fact that they showed unique relationships that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Olshansky said. “It opens up a new opportunity for further investigation.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Olshansky disclosed no relevant competing interests.
FROM EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Psychiatric comorbidities in the pediatric neurology clinic
CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.
As a result, , according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
The ‘second pandemic’
Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.
Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
A unique opportunity
“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.
Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.
She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.
There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.
However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.
In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
A unique perspective
Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.
She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.
During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.
She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”
Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.
As a result, , according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
The ‘second pandemic’
Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.
Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
A unique opportunity
“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.
Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.
She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.
There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.
However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.
In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
A unique perspective
Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.
She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.
During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.
She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”
Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.
As a result, , according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
The ‘second pandemic’
Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.
Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
A unique opportunity
“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.
Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.
She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.
There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.
However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.
In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
A unique perspective
Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.
She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.
During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.
She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”
Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM CNS 2022
Healthy diet, less news helped prevent anxiety, depression during COVID
VIENNA –
Results from a longitudinal Spanish survey study of more than 1,000 adults showed that being outside, relaxing, participating in physical activities, and drinking plenty of water were also beneficial. However, social contact with friends and relatives, following a routine, and pursuing hobbies had no significant impact.
“This was a little surprising,” lead author Joaquim Radua, MD, PhD, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, said in a release.
“Like many people, we had assumed that personal contact would play a bigger part in avoiding anxiety and depression during stressful times,” he added.
However, Dr. Radua said that because the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “people who socialized may also have been anxious about getting infected.”
Consequently, “it may be that this specific behavior cannot be extrapolated to other times, when there is no pandemic,” he said.
The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
Correlational versus longitudinal studies
Dr. Radua emphasized that individuals “should socialize,” of course.
“We think it’s important that people continue to follow what works for them and that if you enjoy seeing friends or following a hobby, you continue to do so,” he said.
“Our work was centered on COVID, but we now need to see if these factors apply to other stressful circumstances. These simple behaviors may prevent anxiety and depression, and prevention is better than cure,” he added.
The researchers note that, in “times of uncertainty” such as the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals experience increases in both anxiety and depressive symptoms.
Although a range of behaviors are recommended to help people cope, the investigators add that some of the recommendations are based on correlational studies.
Indeed, the researchers previously identified a correlation between following a healthy/balanced diet, among other measures, and lower anxiety and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.
However, it is unclear from cross-sectional studies whether the behavior alters the symptoms, in which case the behavior could be considered “helpful,” or conversely whether the symptoms alter an individual’s behavior, in which case the behaviors “may be useless,” the investigators note.
The investigative team therefore set out to provide more robust evidence for making recommendations and conducted a prospective longitudinal study.
They recruited 1,049 adults online via social networks, matching them to the regional, age and sex, and urbanicity distribution of the overall Spanish population.
Every 2 weeks for 12 months, the researchers administered the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and a two-item ecological momentary assessment to minimize recall bias, among other measures. They also asked about 10 self-report coping behaviors.
Significant coping behaviors
The study was completed by 942 individuals, indicating a retention of 90%.
Among both completers and non-completers there was an over-representation of individuals aged 18-34 years and women, compared with the general population, and fewer participants aged at least 65 years.
Pre-recruitment, the mean baseline GAD-7 score among completers was 7.4, falling to around 5.5 at the time of the first questionnaire. Scores on the PHQ-9 were 7.6 and 5.6, respectively.
Performing population-weighted autoregressive moving average models to analyze the relationship between the current frequency of the coping behaviors and future changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms, the investigators found that the greatest effect was from following a healthy, balanced diet, with an impact size of 0.95.
This was followed by avoiding too much stressful news (impact size, 0.91), staying outdoors or looking outside (0.40), doing relaxing activities (0.33), participating in physical exercise (0.32), and drinking water to hydrate (0.25).
Overall, these coping behaviors were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms (all, P < .001).
On the other hand, there was no impact on future symptoms from socializing with friends and relatives, whether or not they lived in the same household. There was also no effect from following a routine, pursuing hobbies, or performing home tasks.
The researchers note that similar results were obtained when excluding participants with hazardous alcohol consumption, defined as a score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test of 8 or higher.
However, they point out that despite its prospective design and large cohort, the study was not interventional. Therefore, they “cannot rule out the possibility that decreasing the frequency of a behavior is an early sign of some mechanism that later leads to increased anxiety and depression symptoms.”
Nevertheless, they believe that possibility “seems unlikely.”
Reflective of a unique time?
Commenting on the findings, Catherine Harmer, PhD, director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said in the release this was an “interesting study” that “provides some important insights as to which behaviors may protect our mental health during times of significant stress.”
She said the finding that social contact was not beneficial was “surprising” but may reflect the fact that, during the pandemic, it was “stressful even to have those social contacts, even if we managed to meet a friend outside.”
The results of the study may therefore be “reflective of the unique experience” of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Harmer, who was not involved with the research.
“I wouldn’t think that reading too much news would generally be something that has a negative impact on depression and anxiety, but I think it was very much at the time,” she said.
With the pandemic overwhelming one country after another, “the more you read about it, the more frightening it was,” she added, noting that it is “easy to forget how frightened we were at the beginning.”
Dr. Harmer noted that “it would be interesting” if the study was repeated and the same factors came out – or if they were unique to that time.
This would be “useful to know, as these times may come again. And the more information we have to cope with a pandemic, the better,” she concluded.
The research was supported by the AXA Research Fund via an AXA Award granted to Dr. Radua from the call for projects “mitigating risk in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The investigators and Dr. Harmer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA –
Results from a longitudinal Spanish survey study of more than 1,000 adults showed that being outside, relaxing, participating in physical activities, and drinking plenty of water were also beneficial. However, social contact with friends and relatives, following a routine, and pursuing hobbies had no significant impact.
“This was a little surprising,” lead author Joaquim Radua, MD, PhD, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, said in a release.
“Like many people, we had assumed that personal contact would play a bigger part in avoiding anxiety and depression during stressful times,” he added.
However, Dr. Radua said that because the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “people who socialized may also have been anxious about getting infected.”
Consequently, “it may be that this specific behavior cannot be extrapolated to other times, when there is no pandemic,” he said.
The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
Correlational versus longitudinal studies
Dr. Radua emphasized that individuals “should socialize,” of course.
“We think it’s important that people continue to follow what works for them and that if you enjoy seeing friends or following a hobby, you continue to do so,” he said.
“Our work was centered on COVID, but we now need to see if these factors apply to other stressful circumstances. These simple behaviors may prevent anxiety and depression, and prevention is better than cure,” he added.
The researchers note that, in “times of uncertainty” such as the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals experience increases in both anxiety and depressive symptoms.
Although a range of behaviors are recommended to help people cope, the investigators add that some of the recommendations are based on correlational studies.
Indeed, the researchers previously identified a correlation between following a healthy/balanced diet, among other measures, and lower anxiety and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.
However, it is unclear from cross-sectional studies whether the behavior alters the symptoms, in which case the behavior could be considered “helpful,” or conversely whether the symptoms alter an individual’s behavior, in which case the behaviors “may be useless,” the investigators note.
The investigative team therefore set out to provide more robust evidence for making recommendations and conducted a prospective longitudinal study.
They recruited 1,049 adults online via social networks, matching them to the regional, age and sex, and urbanicity distribution of the overall Spanish population.
Every 2 weeks for 12 months, the researchers administered the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and a two-item ecological momentary assessment to minimize recall bias, among other measures. They also asked about 10 self-report coping behaviors.
Significant coping behaviors
The study was completed by 942 individuals, indicating a retention of 90%.
Among both completers and non-completers there was an over-representation of individuals aged 18-34 years and women, compared with the general population, and fewer participants aged at least 65 years.
Pre-recruitment, the mean baseline GAD-7 score among completers was 7.4, falling to around 5.5 at the time of the first questionnaire. Scores on the PHQ-9 were 7.6 and 5.6, respectively.
Performing population-weighted autoregressive moving average models to analyze the relationship between the current frequency of the coping behaviors and future changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms, the investigators found that the greatest effect was from following a healthy, balanced diet, with an impact size of 0.95.
This was followed by avoiding too much stressful news (impact size, 0.91), staying outdoors or looking outside (0.40), doing relaxing activities (0.33), participating in physical exercise (0.32), and drinking water to hydrate (0.25).
Overall, these coping behaviors were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms (all, P < .001).
On the other hand, there was no impact on future symptoms from socializing with friends and relatives, whether or not they lived in the same household. There was also no effect from following a routine, pursuing hobbies, or performing home tasks.
The researchers note that similar results were obtained when excluding participants with hazardous alcohol consumption, defined as a score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test of 8 or higher.
However, they point out that despite its prospective design and large cohort, the study was not interventional. Therefore, they “cannot rule out the possibility that decreasing the frequency of a behavior is an early sign of some mechanism that later leads to increased anxiety and depression symptoms.”
Nevertheless, they believe that possibility “seems unlikely.”
Reflective of a unique time?
Commenting on the findings, Catherine Harmer, PhD, director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said in the release this was an “interesting study” that “provides some important insights as to which behaviors may protect our mental health during times of significant stress.”
She said the finding that social contact was not beneficial was “surprising” but may reflect the fact that, during the pandemic, it was “stressful even to have those social contacts, even if we managed to meet a friend outside.”
The results of the study may therefore be “reflective of the unique experience” of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Harmer, who was not involved with the research.
“I wouldn’t think that reading too much news would generally be something that has a negative impact on depression and anxiety, but I think it was very much at the time,” she said.
With the pandemic overwhelming one country after another, “the more you read about it, the more frightening it was,” she added, noting that it is “easy to forget how frightened we were at the beginning.”
Dr. Harmer noted that “it would be interesting” if the study was repeated and the same factors came out – or if they were unique to that time.
This would be “useful to know, as these times may come again. And the more information we have to cope with a pandemic, the better,” she concluded.
The research was supported by the AXA Research Fund via an AXA Award granted to Dr. Radua from the call for projects “mitigating risk in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The investigators and Dr. Harmer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA –
Results from a longitudinal Spanish survey study of more than 1,000 adults showed that being outside, relaxing, participating in physical activities, and drinking plenty of water were also beneficial. However, social contact with friends and relatives, following a routine, and pursuing hobbies had no significant impact.
“This was a little surprising,” lead author Joaquim Radua, MD, PhD, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, said in a release.
“Like many people, we had assumed that personal contact would play a bigger part in avoiding anxiety and depression during stressful times,” he added.
However, Dr. Radua said that because the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “people who socialized may also have been anxious about getting infected.”
Consequently, “it may be that this specific behavior cannot be extrapolated to other times, when there is no pandemic,” he said.
The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
Correlational versus longitudinal studies
Dr. Radua emphasized that individuals “should socialize,” of course.
“We think it’s important that people continue to follow what works for them and that if you enjoy seeing friends or following a hobby, you continue to do so,” he said.
“Our work was centered on COVID, but we now need to see if these factors apply to other stressful circumstances. These simple behaviors may prevent anxiety and depression, and prevention is better than cure,” he added.
The researchers note that, in “times of uncertainty” such as the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals experience increases in both anxiety and depressive symptoms.
Although a range of behaviors are recommended to help people cope, the investigators add that some of the recommendations are based on correlational studies.
Indeed, the researchers previously identified a correlation between following a healthy/balanced diet, among other measures, and lower anxiety and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.
However, it is unclear from cross-sectional studies whether the behavior alters the symptoms, in which case the behavior could be considered “helpful,” or conversely whether the symptoms alter an individual’s behavior, in which case the behaviors “may be useless,” the investigators note.
The investigative team therefore set out to provide more robust evidence for making recommendations and conducted a prospective longitudinal study.
They recruited 1,049 adults online via social networks, matching them to the regional, age and sex, and urbanicity distribution of the overall Spanish population.
Every 2 weeks for 12 months, the researchers administered the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and a two-item ecological momentary assessment to minimize recall bias, among other measures. They also asked about 10 self-report coping behaviors.
Significant coping behaviors
The study was completed by 942 individuals, indicating a retention of 90%.
Among both completers and non-completers there was an over-representation of individuals aged 18-34 years and women, compared with the general population, and fewer participants aged at least 65 years.
Pre-recruitment, the mean baseline GAD-7 score among completers was 7.4, falling to around 5.5 at the time of the first questionnaire. Scores on the PHQ-9 were 7.6 and 5.6, respectively.
Performing population-weighted autoregressive moving average models to analyze the relationship between the current frequency of the coping behaviors and future changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms, the investigators found that the greatest effect was from following a healthy, balanced diet, with an impact size of 0.95.
This was followed by avoiding too much stressful news (impact size, 0.91), staying outdoors or looking outside (0.40), doing relaxing activities (0.33), participating in physical exercise (0.32), and drinking water to hydrate (0.25).
Overall, these coping behaviors were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms (all, P < .001).
On the other hand, there was no impact on future symptoms from socializing with friends and relatives, whether or not they lived in the same household. There was also no effect from following a routine, pursuing hobbies, or performing home tasks.
The researchers note that similar results were obtained when excluding participants with hazardous alcohol consumption, defined as a score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test of 8 or higher.
However, they point out that despite its prospective design and large cohort, the study was not interventional. Therefore, they “cannot rule out the possibility that decreasing the frequency of a behavior is an early sign of some mechanism that later leads to increased anxiety and depression symptoms.”
Nevertheless, they believe that possibility “seems unlikely.”
Reflective of a unique time?
Commenting on the findings, Catherine Harmer, PhD, director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said in the release this was an “interesting study” that “provides some important insights as to which behaviors may protect our mental health during times of significant stress.”
She said the finding that social contact was not beneficial was “surprising” but may reflect the fact that, during the pandemic, it was “stressful even to have those social contacts, even if we managed to meet a friend outside.”
The results of the study may therefore be “reflective of the unique experience” of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Harmer, who was not involved with the research.
“I wouldn’t think that reading too much news would generally be something that has a negative impact on depression and anxiety, but I think it was very much at the time,” she said.
With the pandemic overwhelming one country after another, “the more you read about it, the more frightening it was,” she added, noting that it is “easy to forget how frightened we were at the beginning.”
Dr. Harmer noted that “it would be interesting” if the study was repeated and the same factors came out – or if they were unique to that time.
This would be “useful to know, as these times may come again. And the more information we have to cope with a pandemic, the better,” she concluded.
The research was supported by the AXA Research Fund via an AXA Award granted to Dr. Radua from the call for projects “mitigating risk in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The investigators and Dr. Harmer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECNP 2022
Cognition-boosting ‘smart drugs’ not so smart for healthy people
VIENNA – , new research suggests.
In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.
While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.
The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.
This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.
“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.
He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
Past evidence ambiguous
Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.
He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”
However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.
Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.
To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.
All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.
“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.
The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.
‘Surprising’ findings
Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).
Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.
He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.
When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.
“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”
Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.
This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.
“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.
“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.
While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).
“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
Time to rethink, rewind?
Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”
Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.
Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”
However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.
“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”
He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.
Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”
If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words.
“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.
No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – , new research suggests.
In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.
While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.
The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.
This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.
“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.
He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
Past evidence ambiguous
Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.
He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”
However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.
Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.
To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.
All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.
“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.
The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.
‘Surprising’ findings
Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).
Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.
He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.
When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.
“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”
Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.
This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.
“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.
“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.
While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).
“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
Time to rethink, rewind?
Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”
Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.
Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”
However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.
“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”
He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.
Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”
If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words.
“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.
No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – , new research suggests.
In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.
While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.
The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.
This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.
“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.
He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
Past evidence ambiguous
Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.
He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”
However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.
Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.
To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.
All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.
“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.
The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.
‘Surprising’ findings
Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).
Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.
He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.
When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.
“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”
Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.
This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.
“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.
“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.
While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).
“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
Time to rethink, rewind?
Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”
Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.
Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”
However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.
“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”
He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.
Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”
If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words.
“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.
No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECNP 2022
Study finds systemic AD treatment relieves depressive symptoms along with skin symptoms
MONTREAL – presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).
At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.
Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).
The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.
“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.
Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.
Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”
Dr. Joseph pointed out that taking the deep dive also involves being prepared for what comes up. “Once you’ve established there’s a mental health issue, what do you do then?” she said. “If you are a dermatologist, is that in your wheelhouse to address? There’s the education and connection piece for the physician, creating networks where – if you identify a patient who has an issue – who is a person I can send them to? We have these types of connections with infectious disease or with ophthalmologists if there are ocular symptoms, but mental health is one area where there may not be as much support for dermatologists.”
She noted that though all doctors learn how to screen for depression, “there’s the formulaic, yes/no answers, and then there’s the nuanced history-taking, creating a safe space, where the patient is going to answer you fulsomely ... and feel heard. Many of us know how to do that. The question is time.”
Dr. Ivert had no disclosures connected to this study. Dr. Joseph had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).
At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.
Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).
The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.
“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.
Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.
Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”
Dr. Joseph pointed out that taking the deep dive also involves being prepared for what comes up. “Once you’ve established there’s a mental health issue, what do you do then?” she said. “If you are a dermatologist, is that in your wheelhouse to address? There’s the education and connection piece for the physician, creating networks where – if you identify a patient who has an issue – who is a person I can send them to? We have these types of connections with infectious disease or with ophthalmologists if there are ocular symptoms, but mental health is one area where there may not be as much support for dermatologists.”
She noted that though all doctors learn how to screen for depression, “there’s the formulaic, yes/no answers, and then there’s the nuanced history-taking, creating a safe space, where the patient is going to answer you fulsomely ... and feel heard. Many of us know how to do that. The question is time.”
Dr. Ivert had no disclosures connected to this study. Dr. Joseph had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).
At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.
Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).
The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.
“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.
Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.
Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”
Dr. Joseph pointed out that taking the deep dive also involves being prepared for what comes up. “Once you’ve established there’s a mental health issue, what do you do then?” she said. “If you are a dermatologist, is that in your wheelhouse to address? There’s the education and connection piece for the physician, creating networks where – if you identify a patient who has an issue – who is a person I can send them to? We have these types of connections with infectious disease or with ophthalmologists if there are ocular symptoms, but mental health is one area where there may not be as much support for dermatologists.”
She noted that though all doctors learn how to screen for depression, “there’s the formulaic, yes/no answers, and then there’s the nuanced history-taking, creating a safe space, where the patient is going to answer you fulsomely ... and feel heard. Many of us know how to do that. The question is time.”
Dr. Ivert had no disclosures connected to this study. Dr. Joseph had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISAD 2022