Mental Health

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – A modular digital intervention to teach mental health skills to youth awaiting transfer to psychiatric care appeared feasible to implement and acceptable to teens and their parents, according to a study presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

“This program has the potential to teach evidence-based mental health skills to youth during boarding, providing a head start on recovery prior to psychiatric hospitalization,” study coauthor Samantha House, DO, MPH, section chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., told attendees.

Mental health boarding has become increasingly common as psychiatric care resources have been stretched by a crisis in pediatric mental health that began even before the COVID pandemic. Since youth often don’t receive evidence-based therapies while boarding, Dr. House and her coauthor, JoAnna K. Leyenaar, MD, PhD, MPH, developed a pilot program called I-CARE, which stands for Improving Care, Accelerating Recovery and Education.

I-CARE is a digital health intervention that combines videos on a tablet with workbook exercises that teach mental health skills. The seven modules include an introduction and one each on schedule-making, safety planning, psychoeducation, behavioral activation, relaxation skills, and mindfulness skills. Licensed nursing assistants who have received a 6-hour training from a clinical psychologist administer the program and provide safety supervision during boarding.

“I-CARE was designed to be largely self-directed, supported by ‘coaches’ who are not mental health professionals,” Dr. Leyenaar, vice chair of research in the department of pediatrics and an associate professor of pediatrics at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. With this model, the program requires minimal additional resources beyond the tablets and workbooks, and is designed for implementation in settings with few or no mental health professionals, she said.

Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital, was not involved in the study but was excited to see it.

“I think it’s a really good idea, and I like that it’s being studied,” Dr. Breuner said in an interview. She said the health care and public health system has let down an entire population who data had shown were experiencing mental health problems.

“We knew before the pandemic that behavioral health issues were creeping up slowly with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and, of course, substance use disorders and eating disorders, and not a lot was being done about it,” Dr. Breuner said, and the pandemic exacerbated those issues. ”I don’t know why no one realized that this was going to be the downstream effect of having no socialization for kids for 18 months and limited resources for those who we need desperately to provide care for,” especially BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and people of color] kids and underresourced kids.

That sentiment is exactly what inspired the creation of the program, according to Dr. Leyenaar.

The I-CARE program was implemented at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in November 2021 for adolescents aged 12-17 who were boarding because of suicidality or self-harm. The program and study excluded youth with psychosis and other cognitive or behavioral conditions that didn’t fit with the skills taught by the module training.

The researchers qualitatively evaluated the I-CARE program in youth who were offered at least two I-CARE modules and with parents present during boarding.

Twenty-four youth, with a median age of 14, were offered the I-CARE program between November 2021 and April 2022 while boarding for a median 8 days. Most of the patients were female (79%), and a third were transgender or gender diverse. Most were White (83%), and about two-thirds had Medicaid (62.5%). The most common diagnoses among the participants were major depressive disorder (71%) and generalized anxiety disorder (46%). Others included PTSD (29%), restrictive eating disorder (21%), and bipolar disorder (12.5%).

All offered the program completed the first module, and 79% participated in additional modules. The main reason for discontinuation was transfer to another facility, but a few youth either refused to engage with the program or felt they knew the material well enough that they weren’t benefiting from it.

The evaluation involved 16 youth, seven parents, and 17 clinicians. On a Likert scale, the composite score for the program’s appropriateness – suitability, applicability, and meeting needs – was an average 3.7, with a higher rating from clinicians (4.3) and caregivers (3.5) than youth (2.8).

“Some youth felt the intervention was better suited for a younger audience or those with less familiarity with mental health skills, but they acknowledged that the intervention would be helpful and appropriate for others,” Dr. House, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Geisel School of Medicine, said.

Youth rated the acceptability of the program more highly (3.6) and all three groups found it easy to use, with an average feasibility score of 4 across the board. The program’s acceptability received an average score of 4 from parents and clinicians.

”Teens seem to particularly value the psychoeducation module that explains the relationship between thoughts and feelings, as well as the opportunity to develop a personalized safety plan,” Dr. Leyenaar said.

Among the challenges expressed by the participating teens were that the loud sounds and beeping in the hospital made it difficult to practice mindfulness and that they often had to wait for staff to be available to do I-CARE.

“I feel like not many people have been trained yet,” one teen said, “so to have more nurses available to do I-CARE would be helpful.”

Another participant found the coaches helpful. “Sometimes they were my nurse, sometimes they were someone I never met before. … and also, they were all really, really nice,” the teen said.

Another teen regarded the material as “really surface-level mental health stuff” that they thought “could be helpful to other people who are here for the first time.” But others found the content more beneficial.

“The videos were helpful. … I was worried that they weren’t going to be very informative, but they did make sense to me,” one participant said. “They weren’t overcomplicating things. … They weren’t saying anything I didn’t understand, so that was good.”

The researchers next plan to conduct a multisite study to determine the program’s effectiveness in improving health outcomes and reducing suicidal ideation. Dr. House and Dr. Leyenaar are looking at ways to refine the program.

”We may narrow the age range for participants, with an upper age limit of 16, since some older teens said that the modules were best suited for a younger audience,” Dr. Leyenaar said. “We are also discussing how to best support youth who are readmitted to our hospital and have participated in I-CARE previously.”

Dr. Breuner said she would be interested to see, in future studies of the program, whether it reduced the likelihood of inpatient psychiatric stay, the length of psychiatric stay after admission, or the risk of readmission. She also wondered if the program might be offered in languages other than English, whether a version might be specifically designed for BIPOC youth, and whether the researchers had considered offering the intervention to caregivers as well.

The modules are teaching the kids but should they also be teaching the parents? Dr. Breuner wondered. A lot of times, she said, the parents are bringing these kids in because they don’t know what to do and can’t deal with them anymore. Offering modules on the same skills to caregivers would also enable the caregivers to reinforce and reteach the skills to their children, especially if the youth struggled to really take in what the modules were trying to teach.

Dr. Leyenaar said she expects buy-in for a program like this would be high at other institutions, but it’s premature to scale it up until they’ve conducted at least another clinical trial on its effectiveness. The biggest potential barrier to buy-in that Dr. Breuner perceived would be cost.

“It’s always difficult when it costs money” since the hospital needs to train the clinicians who provide the care, Dr. Breuner said, but it’s possible those costs could be offset if the program reduces the risk of readmission or return to the emergency department.

While the overall risk of harms from the intervention are low, Dr. Breuner said it is important to be conscious that the intervention may not necessarily be appropriate for all youth.

“There’s always risk when there’s a trauma background, and you have to be very careful, especially with mindfulness training,” Dr. Breuner said. For those with a history of abuse or other adverse childhood experiences “for someone to get into a very calm, still place can actually be counterproductive.”

Dr. Breuner especially appreciated that the researchers involved the youth and caregivers in the evaluation process. “That the parents expressed positive attitudes is really incredible,” she said.

Dr. House, Dr. Leyenaar, and Dr. Breuner had no disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – A modular digital intervention to teach mental health skills to youth awaiting transfer to psychiatric care appeared feasible to implement and acceptable to teens and their parents, according to a study presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

“This program has the potential to teach evidence-based mental health skills to youth during boarding, providing a head start on recovery prior to psychiatric hospitalization,” study coauthor Samantha House, DO, MPH, section chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., told attendees.

Mental health boarding has become increasingly common as psychiatric care resources have been stretched by a crisis in pediatric mental health that began even before the COVID pandemic. Since youth often don’t receive evidence-based therapies while boarding, Dr. House and her coauthor, JoAnna K. Leyenaar, MD, PhD, MPH, developed a pilot program called I-CARE, which stands for Improving Care, Accelerating Recovery and Education.

I-CARE is a digital health intervention that combines videos on a tablet with workbook exercises that teach mental health skills. The seven modules include an introduction and one each on schedule-making, safety planning, psychoeducation, behavioral activation, relaxation skills, and mindfulness skills. Licensed nursing assistants who have received a 6-hour training from a clinical psychologist administer the program and provide safety supervision during boarding.

“I-CARE was designed to be largely self-directed, supported by ‘coaches’ who are not mental health professionals,” Dr. Leyenaar, vice chair of research in the department of pediatrics and an associate professor of pediatrics at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. With this model, the program requires minimal additional resources beyond the tablets and workbooks, and is designed for implementation in settings with few or no mental health professionals, she said.

Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital, was not involved in the study but was excited to see it.

“I think it’s a really good idea, and I like that it’s being studied,” Dr. Breuner said in an interview. She said the health care and public health system has let down an entire population who data had shown were experiencing mental health problems.

“We knew before the pandemic that behavioral health issues were creeping up slowly with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and, of course, substance use disorders and eating disorders, and not a lot was being done about it,” Dr. Breuner said, and the pandemic exacerbated those issues. ”I don’t know why no one realized that this was going to be the downstream effect of having no socialization for kids for 18 months and limited resources for those who we need desperately to provide care for,” especially BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and people of color] kids and underresourced kids.

That sentiment is exactly what inspired the creation of the program, according to Dr. Leyenaar.

The I-CARE program was implemented at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in November 2021 for adolescents aged 12-17 who were boarding because of suicidality or self-harm. The program and study excluded youth with psychosis and other cognitive or behavioral conditions that didn’t fit with the skills taught by the module training.

The researchers qualitatively evaluated the I-CARE program in youth who were offered at least two I-CARE modules and with parents present during boarding.

Twenty-four youth, with a median age of 14, were offered the I-CARE program between November 2021 and April 2022 while boarding for a median 8 days. Most of the patients were female (79%), and a third were transgender or gender diverse. Most were White (83%), and about two-thirds had Medicaid (62.5%). The most common diagnoses among the participants were major depressive disorder (71%) and generalized anxiety disorder (46%). Others included PTSD (29%), restrictive eating disorder (21%), and bipolar disorder (12.5%).

All offered the program completed the first module, and 79% participated in additional modules. The main reason for discontinuation was transfer to another facility, but a few youth either refused to engage with the program or felt they knew the material well enough that they weren’t benefiting from it.

The evaluation involved 16 youth, seven parents, and 17 clinicians. On a Likert scale, the composite score for the program’s appropriateness – suitability, applicability, and meeting needs – was an average 3.7, with a higher rating from clinicians (4.3) and caregivers (3.5) than youth (2.8).

“Some youth felt the intervention was better suited for a younger audience or those with less familiarity with mental health skills, but they acknowledged that the intervention would be helpful and appropriate for others,” Dr. House, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Geisel School of Medicine, said.

Youth rated the acceptability of the program more highly (3.6) and all three groups found it easy to use, with an average feasibility score of 4 across the board. The program’s acceptability received an average score of 4 from parents and clinicians.

”Teens seem to particularly value the psychoeducation module that explains the relationship between thoughts and feelings, as well as the opportunity to develop a personalized safety plan,” Dr. Leyenaar said.

Among the challenges expressed by the participating teens were that the loud sounds and beeping in the hospital made it difficult to practice mindfulness and that they often had to wait for staff to be available to do I-CARE.

“I feel like not many people have been trained yet,” one teen said, “so to have more nurses available to do I-CARE would be helpful.”

Another participant found the coaches helpful. “Sometimes they were my nurse, sometimes they were someone I never met before. … and also, they were all really, really nice,” the teen said.

Another teen regarded the material as “really surface-level mental health stuff” that they thought “could be helpful to other people who are here for the first time.” But others found the content more beneficial.

“The videos were helpful. … I was worried that they weren’t going to be very informative, but they did make sense to me,” one participant said. “They weren’t overcomplicating things. … They weren’t saying anything I didn’t understand, so that was good.”

The researchers next plan to conduct a multisite study to determine the program’s effectiveness in improving health outcomes and reducing suicidal ideation. Dr. House and Dr. Leyenaar are looking at ways to refine the program.

”We may narrow the age range for participants, with an upper age limit of 16, since some older teens said that the modules were best suited for a younger audience,” Dr. Leyenaar said. “We are also discussing how to best support youth who are readmitted to our hospital and have participated in I-CARE previously.”

Dr. Breuner said she would be interested to see, in future studies of the program, whether it reduced the likelihood of inpatient psychiatric stay, the length of psychiatric stay after admission, or the risk of readmission. She also wondered if the program might be offered in languages other than English, whether a version might be specifically designed for BIPOC youth, and whether the researchers had considered offering the intervention to caregivers as well.

The modules are teaching the kids but should they also be teaching the parents? Dr. Breuner wondered. A lot of times, she said, the parents are bringing these kids in because they don’t know what to do and can’t deal with them anymore. Offering modules on the same skills to caregivers would also enable the caregivers to reinforce and reteach the skills to their children, especially if the youth struggled to really take in what the modules were trying to teach.

Dr. Leyenaar said she expects buy-in for a program like this would be high at other institutions, but it’s premature to scale it up until they’ve conducted at least another clinical trial on its effectiveness. The biggest potential barrier to buy-in that Dr. Breuner perceived would be cost.

“It’s always difficult when it costs money” since the hospital needs to train the clinicians who provide the care, Dr. Breuner said, but it’s possible those costs could be offset if the program reduces the risk of readmission or return to the emergency department.

While the overall risk of harms from the intervention are low, Dr. Breuner said it is important to be conscious that the intervention may not necessarily be appropriate for all youth.

“There’s always risk when there’s a trauma background, and you have to be very careful, especially with mindfulness training,” Dr. Breuner said. For those with a history of abuse or other adverse childhood experiences “for someone to get into a very calm, still place can actually be counterproductive.”

Dr. Breuner especially appreciated that the researchers involved the youth and caregivers in the evaluation process. “That the parents expressed positive attitudes is really incredible,” she said.

Dr. House, Dr. Leyenaar, and Dr. Breuner had no disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – A modular digital intervention to teach mental health skills to youth awaiting transfer to psychiatric care appeared feasible to implement and acceptable to teens and their parents, according to a study presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

“This program has the potential to teach evidence-based mental health skills to youth during boarding, providing a head start on recovery prior to psychiatric hospitalization,” study coauthor Samantha House, DO, MPH, section chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., told attendees.

Mental health boarding has become increasingly common as psychiatric care resources have been stretched by a crisis in pediatric mental health that began even before the COVID pandemic. Since youth often don’t receive evidence-based therapies while boarding, Dr. House and her coauthor, JoAnna K. Leyenaar, MD, PhD, MPH, developed a pilot program called I-CARE, which stands for Improving Care, Accelerating Recovery and Education.

I-CARE is a digital health intervention that combines videos on a tablet with workbook exercises that teach mental health skills. The seven modules include an introduction and one each on schedule-making, safety planning, psychoeducation, behavioral activation, relaxation skills, and mindfulness skills. Licensed nursing assistants who have received a 6-hour training from a clinical psychologist administer the program and provide safety supervision during boarding.

“I-CARE was designed to be largely self-directed, supported by ‘coaches’ who are not mental health professionals,” Dr. Leyenaar, vice chair of research in the department of pediatrics and an associate professor of pediatrics at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. With this model, the program requires minimal additional resources beyond the tablets and workbooks, and is designed for implementation in settings with few or no mental health professionals, she said.

Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital, was not involved in the study but was excited to see it.

“I think it’s a really good idea, and I like that it’s being studied,” Dr. Breuner said in an interview. She said the health care and public health system has let down an entire population who data had shown were experiencing mental health problems.

“We knew before the pandemic that behavioral health issues were creeping up slowly with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and, of course, substance use disorders and eating disorders, and not a lot was being done about it,” Dr. Breuner said, and the pandemic exacerbated those issues. ”I don’t know why no one realized that this was going to be the downstream effect of having no socialization for kids for 18 months and limited resources for those who we need desperately to provide care for,” especially BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and people of color] kids and underresourced kids.

That sentiment is exactly what inspired the creation of the program, according to Dr. Leyenaar.

The I-CARE program was implemented at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in November 2021 for adolescents aged 12-17 who were boarding because of suicidality or self-harm. The program and study excluded youth with psychosis and other cognitive or behavioral conditions that didn’t fit with the skills taught by the module training.

The researchers qualitatively evaluated the I-CARE program in youth who were offered at least two I-CARE modules and with parents present during boarding.

Twenty-four youth, with a median age of 14, were offered the I-CARE program between November 2021 and April 2022 while boarding for a median 8 days. Most of the patients were female (79%), and a third were transgender or gender diverse. Most were White (83%), and about two-thirds had Medicaid (62.5%). The most common diagnoses among the participants were major depressive disorder (71%) and generalized anxiety disorder (46%). Others included PTSD (29%), restrictive eating disorder (21%), and bipolar disorder (12.5%).

All offered the program completed the first module, and 79% participated in additional modules. The main reason for discontinuation was transfer to another facility, but a few youth either refused to engage with the program or felt they knew the material well enough that they weren’t benefiting from it.

The evaluation involved 16 youth, seven parents, and 17 clinicians. On a Likert scale, the composite score for the program’s appropriateness – suitability, applicability, and meeting needs – was an average 3.7, with a higher rating from clinicians (4.3) and caregivers (3.5) than youth (2.8).

“Some youth felt the intervention was better suited for a younger audience or those with less familiarity with mental health skills, but they acknowledged that the intervention would be helpful and appropriate for others,” Dr. House, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Geisel School of Medicine, said.

Youth rated the acceptability of the program more highly (3.6) and all three groups found it easy to use, with an average feasibility score of 4 across the board. The program’s acceptability received an average score of 4 from parents and clinicians.

”Teens seem to particularly value the psychoeducation module that explains the relationship between thoughts and feelings, as well as the opportunity to develop a personalized safety plan,” Dr. Leyenaar said.

Among the challenges expressed by the participating teens were that the loud sounds and beeping in the hospital made it difficult to practice mindfulness and that they often had to wait for staff to be available to do I-CARE.

“I feel like not many people have been trained yet,” one teen said, “so to have more nurses available to do I-CARE would be helpful.”

Another participant found the coaches helpful. “Sometimes they were my nurse, sometimes they were someone I never met before. … and also, they were all really, really nice,” the teen said.

Another teen regarded the material as “really surface-level mental health stuff” that they thought “could be helpful to other people who are here for the first time.” But others found the content more beneficial.

“The videos were helpful. … I was worried that they weren’t going to be very informative, but they did make sense to me,” one participant said. “They weren’t overcomplicating things. … They weren’t saying anything I didn’t understand, so that was good.”

The researchers next plan to conduct a multisite study to determine the program’s effectiveness in improving health outcomes and reducing suicidal ideation. Dr. House and Dr. Leyenaar are looking at ways to refine the program.

”We may narrow the age range for participants, with an upper age limit of 16, since some older teens said that the modules were best suited for a younger audience,” Dr. Leyenaar said. “We are also discussing how to best support youth who are readmitted to our hospital and have participated in I-CARE previously.”

Dr. Breuner said she would be interested to see, in future studies of the program, whether it reduced the likelihood of inpatient psychiatric stay, the length of psychiatric stay after admission, or the risk of readmission. She also wondered if the program might be offered in languages other than English, whether a version might be specifically designed for BIPOC youth, and whether the researchers had considered offering the intervention to caregivers as well.

The modules are teaching the kids but should they also be teaching the parents? Dr. Breuner wondered. A lot of times, she said, the parents are bringing these kids in because they don’t know what to do and can’t deal with them anymore. Offering modules on the same skills to caregivers would also enable the caregivers to reinforce and reteach the skills to their children, especially if the youth struggled to really take in what the modules were trying to teach.

Dr. Leyenaar said she expects buy-in for a program like this would be high at other institutions, but it’s premature to scale it up until they’ve conducted at least another clinical trial on its effectiveness. The biggest potential barrier to buy-in that Dr. Breuner perceived would be cost.

“It’s always difficult when it costs money” since the hospital needs to train the clinicians who provide the care, Dr. Breuner said, but it’s possible those costs could be offset if the program reduces the risk of readmission or return to the emergency department.

While the overall risk of harms from the intervention are low, Dr. Breuner said it is important to be conscious that the intervention may not necessarily be appropriate for all youth.

“There’s always risk when there’s a trauma background, and you have to be very careful, especially with mindfulness training,” Dr. Breuner said. For those with a history of abuse or other adverse childhood experiences “for someone to get into a very calm, still place can actually be counterproductive.”

Dr. Breuner especially appreciated that the researchers involved the youth and caregivers in the evaluation process. “That the parents expressed positive attitudes is really incredible,” she said.

Dr. House, Dr. Leyenaar, and Dr. Breuner had no disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

In 2019 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested $27 million in the Focused Pharma program to develop new, more efficacious, rapid-acting drugs, including hallucinogens.¹ While Focused Pharma does not include human studies, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) newly launched psychedelics program research does include clinical trials.² When I read of these ambitious projects, I recalled 2 prescient memories from my youth.

The first memory was of a dinner table conversation between my father, then chief of pediatrics at a military hospital, and one of my older brothers, a burgeoning hippie. My father mentioned that the military was doing research on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and my brother asked whether he could bring some home for my brother to try. My father looked up from the dinner table with incredulity and in an ironic monotone replied, “No you would not qualify for the research, you are not in the Army.”

The second was about 10 years later, when I visited the state psychiatric hospital where my father directed the adolescent ward. I saw a group of young adults watching test patterns on an old-fashioned television set. When I asked my father what was wrong with them, he shook his head and said, “Too much LSD.”

Albert Hoffman was a Sandoz chemist when in 1938 he serendipitously developed LSD while working on a fungus that grew on grain. LSD’s psychoactive properties were not discovered until 1943. About a decade later, as the Cold War chilled international relations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began conducting experiments on military personnel in the MKUltra program using LSD, electroshock, hypnosis, and other techniques to develop a mind control program before its rivals did.³

Beginning in the 1950s, the US government collaborated with pharmaceutical companies and research universities to develop LSD as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. Though planned to be used against enemies, the program instead exploited US service members to develop hallucinogens as a form of chemical warfare that could render enemy troops mentally incapacitated. That psychiatrists, who then (as now) led much of this research, raised a host of ethical concerns about dual roles, disclosure, and duty.⁴

Government investigations and academic studies have shown that even soldiers who volunteered for the research were not given adequate information about the nature of the experiments and the potential adverse effects, such as persisting flashbacks. The military’s research on LSD ended in 1963, not because of the unethical aspects of the research, but because the effects of LSD were so unpredictable that the drug could not be effectively weaponized. Like Tuskegee and other research abuses of the time, when the MKUltra program was exposed, there were congressional investigations.⁵ Later studies found that many of the active-duty research subjects experienced a plethora of lasting and serious psychiatric symptoms. VHA practitioners had to put back together many of these broken service members. This program was rife with violations of research ethics and human rights, and those abuses tainted the field of hallucinogenic research in US Department of Defense (DoD) and VHA circles for decades.⁵ These research abuses, in part, have led to hallucinogens being categorized as Schedule I controlled substances, effectively blocking federal funding for research until recently.

LSD, Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), popularly known as psychedelics, are again receiving attention. However, the current investigations into psychedelics are vastly different—scientifically and ethically. The most important difference is that the context and leadership of these studies is not national security—it is health care.

The goal of this new wave of psychedelic research is not mind control or brain alteration, but liberation of the mind from cycles of rumination and trauma and empowerment to change patterns of self-destruction to affirmation of life. The impetus for this research is not international espionage but to find better treatments for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, severe substance use disorders, and treatment-resistant depression that contribute to unquantifiable mental pain, psychosocial dysfunction, and an epidemic of suicide among military service members and veterans.⁶ Though we have some effective treatments for these often combat-inflicted maladies—primarily evidence-based psychotherapies—yet these treatments are not tolerable or safe, fast-acting, or long-lasting enough to succor each and every troubled soul. The success of ketamine, a dissociative drug, in relieving the most distressing service-connected psychiatric diagnoses has provided a proof of concept to reinvigorate the moribund hallucinogenic research idea.⁷

This dark chapter in US military research is a cautionary tale. The often quoted and more often ignored advice of the Spanish American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” should serve as the guiding principle of the new hallucinogenic research.⁸ Human subjects’ protections have exponentially improved since the days of the secret LSD project even for active-duty personnel. The Common Rule governs that all research participants are given adequate information that includes whatever is known about the risks and benefits of the research.¹⁰ Participants must provide full and free informed consent to enroll in these clinical trials, a consent that encompasses the right to withdraw from the research at any time without jeopardizing their careers, benefits, or ongoing health care.¹⁰

These rules, though, can be bent, broken, avoided, or worked around. Only the moral integrity of study personnel, administrators, oversight agencies, research compliance officers, and most important, principal investigators can assure that the rules are upheld and the rights they guarantee are respected.⁹ It would be a tragic shame if the promised hope for the relief of psychic pain went unrealized due to media hype, shared desperation of clinicians and patients, and conflicts of interests that today are more likely to come from profit-driven pharmaceutical companies than national security agencies. And for all of us in federal practice, remembering the sordid past forays with LSD can redeem the present research so future service members and veterans and the clinicians who care for them have better balms to heal the wounds of war.

In 2019 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested $27 million in the Focused Pharma program to develop new, more efficacious, rapid-acting drugs, including hallucinogens.¹ While Focused Pharma does not include human studies, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) newly launched psychedelics program research does include clinical trials.² When I read of these ambitious projects, I recalled 2 prescient memories from my youth.

The first memory was of a dinner table conversation between my father, then chief of pediatrics at a military hospital, and one of my older brothers, a burgeoning hippie. My father mentioned that the military was doing research on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and my brother asked whether he could bring some home for my brother to try. My father looked up from the dinner table with incredulity and in an ironic monotone replied, “No you would not qualify for the research, you are not in the Army.”

The second was about 10 years later, when I visited the state psychiatric hospital where my father directed the adolescent ward. I saw a group of young adults watching test patterns on an old-fashioned television set. When I asked my father what was wrong with them, he shook his head and said, “Too much LSD.”

Albert Hoffman was a Sandoz chemist when in 1938 he serendipitously developed LSD while working on a fungus that grew on grain. LSD’s psychoactive properties were not discovered until 1943. About a decade later, as the Cold War chilled international relations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began conducting experiments on military personnel in the MKUltra program using LSD, electroshock, hypnosis, and other techniques to develop a mind control program before its rivals did.³

Beginning in the 1950s, the US government collaborated with pharmaceutical companies and research universities to develop LSD as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. Though planned to be used against enemies, the program instead exploited US service members to develop hallucinogens as a form of chemical warfare that could render enemy troops mentally incapacitated. That psychiatrists, who then (as now) led much of this research, raised a host of ethical concerns about dual roles, disclosure, and duty.⁴

Government investigations and academic studies have shown that even soldiers who volunteered for the research were not given adequate information about the nature of the experiments and the potential adverse effects, such as persisting flashbacks. The military’s research on LSD ended in 1963, not because of the unethical aspects of the research, but because the effects of LSD were so unpredictable that the drug could not be effectively weaponized. Like Tuskegee and other research abuses of the time, when the MKUltra program was exposed, there were congressional investigations.⁵ Later studies found that many of the active-duty research subjects experienced a plethora of lasting and serious psychiatric symptoms. VHA practitioners had to put back together many of these broken service members. This program was rife with violations of research ethics and human rights, and those abuses tainted the field of hallucinogenic research in US Department of Defense (DoD) and VHA circles for decades.⁵ These research abuses, in part, have led to hallucinogens being categorized as Schedule I controlled substances, effectively blocking federal funding for research until recently.

LSD, Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), popularly known as psychedelics, are again receiving attention. However, the current investigations into psychedelics are vastly different—scientifically and ethically. The most important difference is that the context and leadership of these studies is not national security—it is health care.

The goal of this new wave of psychedelic research is not mind control or brain alteration, but liberation of the mind from cycles of rumination and trauma and empowerment to change patterns of self-destruction to affirmation of life. The impetus for this research is not international espionage but to find better treatments for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, severe substance use disorders, and treatment-resistant depression that contribute to unquantifiable mental pain, psychosocial dysfunction, and an epidemic of suicide among military service members and veterans.⁶ Though we have some effective treatments for these often combat-inflicted maladies—primarily evidence-based psychotherapies—yet these treatments are not tolerable or safe, fast-acting, or long-lasting enough to succor each and every troubled soul. The success of ketamine, a dissociative drug, in relieving the most distressing service-connected psychiatric diagnoses has provided a proof of concept to reinvigorate the moribund hallucinogenic research idea.⁷

This dark chapter in US military research is a cautionary tale. The often quoted and more often ignored advice of the Spanish American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” should serve as the guiding principle of the new hallucinogenic research.⁸ Human subjects’ protections have exponentially improved since the days of the secret LSD project even for active-duty personnel. The Common Rule governs that all research participants are given adequate information that includes whatever is known about the risks and benefits of the research.¹⁰ Participants must provide full and free informed consent to enroll in these clinical trials, a consent that encompasses the right to withdraw from the research at any time without jeopardizing their careers, benefits, or ongoing health care.¹⁰

These rules, though, can be bent, broken, avoided, or worked around. Only the moral integrity of study personnel, administrators, oversight agencies, research compliance officers, and most important, principal investigators can assure that the rules are upheld and the rights they guarantee are respected.⁹ It would be a tragic shame if the promised hope for the relief of psychic pain went unrealized due to media hype, shared desperation of clinicians and patients, and conflicts of interests that today are more likely to come from profit-driven pharmaceutical companies than national security agencies. And for all of us in federal practice, remembering the sordid past forays with LSD can redeem the present research so future service members and veterans and the clinicians who care for them have better balms to heal the wounds of war.

In 2019 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested $27 million in the Focused Pharma program to develop new, more efficacious, rapid-acting drugs, including hallucinogens.¹ While Focused Pharma does not include human studies, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) newly launched psychedelics program research does include clinical trials.² When I read of these ambitious projects, I recalled 2 prescient memories from my youth.

The first memory was of a dinner table conversation between my father, then chief of pediatrics at a military hospital, and one of my older brothers, a burgeoning hippie. My father mentioned that the military was doing research on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and my brother asked whether he could bring some home for my brother to try. My father looked up from the dinner table with incredulity and in an ironic monotone replied, “No you would not qualify for the research, you are not in the Army.”

The second was about 10 years later, when I visited the state psychiatric hospital where my father directed the adolescent ward. I saw a group of young adults watching test patterns on an old-fashioned television set. When I asked my father what was wrong with them, he shook his head and said, “Too much LSD.”

Albert Hoffman was a Sandoz chemist when in 1938 he serendipitously developed LSD while working on a fungus that grew on grain. LSD’s psychoactive properties were not discovered until 1943. About a decade later, as the Cold War chilled international relations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began conducting experiments on military personnel in the MKUltra program using LSD, electroshock, hypnosis, and other techniques to develop a mind control program before its rivals did.³

Beginning in the 1950s, the US government collaborated with pharmaceutical companies and research universities to develop LSD as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. Though planned to be used against enemies, the program instead exploited US service members to develop hallucinogens as a form of chemical warfare that could render enemy troops mentally incapacitated. That psychiatrists, who then (as now) led much of this research, raised a host of ethical concerns about dual roles, disclosure, and duty.⁴

Government investigations and academic studies have shown that even soldiers who volunteered for the research were not given adequate information about the nature of the experiments and the potential adverse effects, such as persisting flashbacks. The military’s research on LSD ended in 1963, not because of the unethical aspects of the research, but because the effects of LSD were so unpredictable that the drug could not be effectively weaponized. Like Tuskegee and other research abuses of the time, when the MKUltra program was exposed, there were congressional investigations.⁵ Later studies found that many of the active-duty research subjects experienced a plethora of lasting and serious psychiatric symptoms. VHA practitioners had to put back together many of these broken service members. This program was rife with violations of research ethics and human rights, and those abuses tainted the field of hallucinogenic research in US Department of Defense (DoD) and VHA circles for decades.⁵ These research abuses, in part, have led to hallucinogens being categorized as Schedule I controlled substances, effectively blocking federal funding for research until recently.

LSD, Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), popularly known as psychedelics, are again receiving attention. However, the current investigations into psychedelics are vastly different—scientifically and ethically. The most important difference is that the context and leadership of these studies is not national security—it is health care.

The goal of this new wave of psychedelic research is not mind control or brain alteration, but liberation of the mind from cycles of rumination and trauma and empowerment to change patterns of self-destruction to affirmation of life. The impetus for this research is not international espionage but to find better treatments for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, severe substance use disorders, and treatment-resistant depression that contribute to unquantifiable mental pain, psychosocial dysfunction, and an epidemic of suicide among military service members and veterans.⁶ Though we have some effective treatments for these often combat-inflicted maladies—primarily evidence-based psychotherapies—yet these treatments are not tolerable or safe, fast-acting, or long-lasting enough to succor each and every troubled soul. The success of ketamine, a dissociative drug, in relieving the most distressing service-connected psychiatric diagnoses has provided a proof of concept to reinvigorate the moribund hallucinogenic research idea.⁷

This dark chapter in US military research is a cautionary tale. The often quoted and more often ignored advice of the Spanish American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” should serve as the guiding principle of the new hallucinogenic research.⁸ Human subjects’ protections have exponentially improved since the days of the secret LSD project even for active-duty personnel. The Common Rule governs that all research participants are given adequate information that includes whatever is known about the risks and benefits of the research.¹⁰ Participants must provide full and free informed consent to enroll in these clinical trials, a consent that encompasses the right to withdraw from the research at any time without jeopardizing their careers, benefits, or ongoing health care.¹⁰

These rules, though, can be bent, broken, avoided, or worked around. Only the moral integrity of study personnel, administrators, oversight agencies, research compliance officers, and most important, principal investigators can assure that the rules are upheld and the rights they guarantee are respected.⁹ It would be a tragic shame if the promised hope for the relief of psychic pain went unrealized due to media hype, shared desperation of clinicians and patients, and conflicts of interests that today are more likely to come from profit-driven pharmaceutical companies than national security agencies. And for all of us in federal practice, remembering the sordid past forays with LSD can redeem the present research so future service members and veterans and the clinicians who care for them have better balms to heal the wounds of war.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Long-term antidepressant use is tied to an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease (CHD), and all-cause mortality, new research suggests.

The investigators drew on 10-year data from the UK Biobank on over 220,000 adults and compared the risk of developing adverse health outcomes among those taking antidepressants with the risk among those who were not taking antidepressants.

After adjusting for preexisting risk factors, they found that 10-year antidepressant use was associated with a twofold higher risk of CHD, an almost-twofold higher risk of CVD as well as CVD mortality, a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, and more than double the risk of all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, at 10 years, antidepressant use was associated with a 23% lower risk of developing hypertension and a 32% lower risk of diabetes.

The main culprits were mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and trazodone, although SSRIs were also tied to increased risk.

“Our message for clinicians is that prescribing of antidepressants in the long term may not be harm free [and] we hope that this study will help doctors and patients have more informed conversations when they weigh up the potential risks and benefits of treatments for depression,” study investigator Narinder Bansal, MD, honorary research fellow, Centre for Academic Health and Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol (England), said in a news release.

“Regardless of whether the drugs are the underlying cause of these problems, our findings emphasize the importance of proactive cardiovascular monitoring and prevention in patients who have depression and are on antidepressants, given that both have been associated with higher risks,” she added.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry Open.
 

Monitoring of CVD risk ‘critical’

Antidepressants are among the most widely prescribed drugs; 70 million prescriptions were dispensed in 2018 alone, representing a doubling of prescriptions for these agents in a decade, the investigators noted. “This striking rise in prescribing is attributed to long-term treatment rather than an increased incidence of depression.”

Most trials that have assessed antidepressant efficacy have been “poorly suited to examining adverse outcomes.” One reason for this is that many of the trials are short-term studies. Since depression is “strongly associated” with CVD risk factors, “careful assessment of the long-term cardiometabolic effects of antidepressant treatment is critical.”

Moreover, information about “a wide range of prospectively measured confounders ... is needed to provide robust estimates of the risks associated with long-term antidepressant use,” the authors noted.

The researchers examined the association between antidepressant use and four cardiometabolic morbidity outcomes – diabetes, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and CHD. In addition, they assessed two mortality outcomes – CVD mortality and all-cause mortality. Participants were divided into cohorts on the basis of outcome of interest.

The dataset contains detailed information on socioeconomic status, demographics, anthropometric, behavioral, and biochemical risk factors, disability, and health status and is linked to datasets of primary care records and deaths.

The study included 222,121 participants whose data had been linked to primary care records during 2018 (median age of participants, 56-57 years). About half were women, and 96% were of White ethnicity.

Participants were excluded if they had been prescribed antidepressants 12 months or less before baseline, if they had previously been diagnosed for the outcome of interest, if they had been previously prescribed psychotropic drugs, if they used cardiometabolic drugs at baseline, or if they had undergone treatment with antidepressant polytherapy.

Potential confounders included age, gender, body mass index, waist/hip ratio, smoking and alcohol intake status, physical activity, parental history of outcome, biochemical and hematologic biomarkers, socioeconomic status, and long-term illness, disability, or infirmity.
 

Mechanism unclear

By the end of the 5- and 10-year follow-up periods, an average of 8% and 6% of participants in each cohort, respectively, had been prescribed an antidepressant. SSRIs constituted the most commonly prescribed class (80%-82%), and citalopram was the most commonly prescribed SSRI (46%-47%). Mirtazapine was the most frequently prescribed non-SSRI antidepressant (44%-46%).

At 5 years, any antidepressant use was associated with an increased risk for diabetes, CHD, and all-cause mortality, but the findings were attenuated after further adjustment for confounders. In fact, SSRIs were associated with a reduced risk of diabetes at 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.83).

At 10 years, SSRIs were associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular disease, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality; non-SSRIs were associated with an increased risk of CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, SSRIs were associated with a decrease in risk of diabetes and hypertension at 10 years (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89, respectively).

“While we have taken into account a wide range of pre-existing risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including those that are linked to depression such as excess weight, smoking, and low physical activity, it is difficult to fully control for the effects of depression in this kind of study, partly because there is considerable variability in the recording of depression severity in primary care,” said Dr. Bansal.

“This is important because many people taking antidepressants such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine and trazodone may have a more severe depression. This makes it difficult to fully separate the effects of the depression from the effects of medication,” she said.

Further research “is needed to assess whether the associations we have seen are genuinely due to the drugs; and, if so, why this might be,” she added.
 

Strengths, limitations

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit at the University of Toronto,, discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

The UK Biobank is a “well-described, well-phenotyped dataset of good quality,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairperson and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study. Another strength is the “impressive number of variables the database contains, which enabled the authors to go much deeper into the topics.”

A “significant limitation” is the confounding that is inherent to the disorder itself – “people with depression have a much higher intrinsic risk of CVD, [cerebrovascular disease], and cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. McIntyre noted.

The researchers did not adjust for trauma or childhood maltreatment, “which are the biggest risk factors for both depression and CVD; and drug and alcohol misuse were also not accounted for.”

Additionally, “to determine whether something is an association or potentially causative, it must satisfy the Bradford-Hill criteria,” said Dr. McIntyre. “Since we’re moving more toward using these big databases and because we depend on them to give us long-term perspectives, we would want to see coherent, compelling Bradford-Hill criteria regarding causation. If you don’t have any, that’s fine too, but then it’s important to make clear that there is no clear causative line, just an association.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Health Research School for Primary Care Research and was supported by the NI Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CI/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute and speaker/consultation fees from numerous companies. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific.

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

Long-term antidepressant use is tied to an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease (CHD), and all-cause mortality, new research suggests.

The investigators drew on 10-year data from the UK Biobank on over 220,000 adults and compared the risk of developing adverse health outcomes among those taking antidepressants with the risk among those who were not taking antidepressants.

After adjusting for preexisting risk factors, they found that 10-year antidepressant use was associated with a twofold higher risk of CHD, an almost-twofold higher risk of CVD as well as CVD mortality, a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, and more than double the risk of all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, at 10 years, antidepressant use was associated with a 23% lower risk of developing hypertension and a 32% lower risk of diabetes.

The main culprits were mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and trazodone, although SSRIs were also tied to increased risk.

“Our message for clinicians is that prescribing of antidepressants in the long term may not be harm free [and] we hope that this study will help doctors and patients have more informed conversations when they weigh up the potential risks and benefits of treatments for depression,” study investigator Narinder Bansal, MD, honorary research fellow, Centre for Academic Health and Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol (England), said in a news release.

“Regardless of whether the drugs are the underlying cause of these problems, our findings emphasize the importance of proactive cardiovascular monitoring and prevention in patients who have depression and are on antidepressants, given that both have been associated with higher risks,” she added.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry Open.
 

Monitoring of CVD risk ‘critical’

Antidepressants are among the most widely prescribed drugs; 70 million prescriptions were dispensed in 2018 alone, representing a doubling of prescriptions for these agents in a decade, the investigators noted. “This striking rise in prescribing is attributed to long-term treatment rather than an increased incidence of depression.”

Most trials that have assessed antidepressant efficacy have been “poorly suited to examining adverse outcomes.” One reason for this is that many of the trials are short-term studies. Since depression is “strongly associated” with CVD risk factors, “careful assessment of the long-term cardiometabolic effects of antidepressant treatment is critical.”

Moreover, information about “a wide range of prospectively measured confounders ... is needed to provide robust estimates of the risks associated with long-term antidepressant use,” the authors noted.

The researchers examined the association between antidepressant use and four cardiometabolic morbidity outcomes – diabetes, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and CHD. In addition, they assessed two mortality outcomes – CVD mortality and all-cause mortality. Participants were divided into cohorts on the basis of outcome of interest.

The dataset contains detailed information on socioeconomic status, demographics, anthropometric, behavioral, and biochemical risk factors, disability, and health status and is linked to datasets of primary care records and deaths.

The study included 222,121 participants whose data had been linked to primary care records during 2018 (median age of participants, 56-57 years). About half were women, and 96% were of White ethnicity.

Participants were excluded if they had been prescribed antidepressants 12 months or less before baseline, if they had previously been diagnosed for the outcome of interest, if they had been previously prescribed psychotropic drugs, if they used cardiometabolic drugs at baseline, or if they had undergone treatment with antidepressant polytherapy.

Potential confounders included age, gender, body mass index, waist/hip ratio, smoking and alcohol intake status, physical activity, parental history of outcome, biochemical and hematologic biomarkers, socioeconomic status, and long-term illness, disability, or infirmity.
 

Mechanism unclear

By the end of the 5- and 10-year follow-up periods, an average of 8% and 6% of participants in each cohort, respectively, had been prescribed an antidepressant. SSRIs constituted the most commonly prescribed class (80%-82%), and citalopram was the most commonly prescribed SSRI (46%-47%). Mirtazapine was the most frequently prescribed non-SSRI antidepressant (44%-46%).

At 5 years, any antidepressant use was associated with an increased risk for diabetes, CHD, and all-cause mortality, but the findings were attenuated after further adjustment for confounders. In fact, SSRIs were associated with a reduced risk of diabetes at 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.83).

At 10 years, SSRIs were associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular disease, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality; non-SSRIs were associated with an increased risk of CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, SSRIs were associated with a decrease in risk of diabetes and hypertension at 10 years (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89, respectively).

“While we have taken into account a wide range of pre-existing risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including those that are linked to depression such as excess weight, smoking, and low physical activity, it is difficult to fully control for the effects of depression in this kind of study, partly because there is considerable variability in the recording of depression severity in primary care,” said Dr. Bansal.

“This is important because many people taking antidepressants such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine and trazodone may have a more severe depression. This makes it difficult to fully separate the effects of the depression from the effects of medication,” she said.

Further research “is needed to assess whether the associations we have seen are genuinely due to the drugs; and, if so, why this might be,” she added.
 

Strengths, limitations

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit at the University of Toronto,, discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

The UK Biobank is a “well-described, well-phenotyped dataset of good quality,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairperson and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study. Another strength is the “impressive number of variables the database contains, which enabled the authors to go much deeper into the topics.”

A “significant limitation” is the confounding that is inherent to the disorder itself – “people with depression have a much higher intrinsic risk of CVD, [cerebrovascular disease], and cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. McIntyre noted.

The researchers did not adjust for trauma or childhood maltreatment, “which are the biggest risk factors for both depression and CVD; and drug and alcohol misuse were also not accounted for.”

Additionally, “to determine whether something is an association or potentially causative, it must satisfy the Bradford-Hill criteria,” said Dr. McIntyre. “Since we’re moving more toward using these big databases and because we depend on them to give us long-term perspectives, we would want to see coherent, compelling Bradford-Hill criteria regarding causation. If you don’t have any, that’s fine too, but then it’s important to make clear that there is no clear causative line, just an association.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Health Research School for Primary Care Research and was supported by the NI Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CI/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute and speaker/consultation fees from numerous companies. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific.

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

Long-term antidepressant use is tied to an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease (CHD), and all-cause mortality, new research suggests.

The investigators drew on 10-year data from the UK Biobank on over 220,000 adults and compared the risk of developing adverse health outcomes among those taking antidepressants with the risk among those who were not taking antidepressants.

After adjusting for preexisting risk factors, they found that 10-year antidepressant use was associated with a twofold higher risk of CHD, an almost-twofold higher risk of CVD as well as CVD mortality, a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, and more than double the risk of all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, at 10 years, antidepressant use was associated with a 23% lower risk of developing hypertension and a 32% lower risk of diabetes.

The main culprits were mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and trazodone, although SSRIs were also tied to increased risk.

“Our message for clinicians is that prescribing of antidepressants in the long term may not be harm free [and] we hope that this study will help doctors and patients have more informed conversations when they weigh up the potential risks and benefits of treatments for depression,” study investigator Narinder Bansal, MD, honorary research fellow, Centre for Academic Health and Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol (England), said in a news release.

“Regardless of whether the drugs are the underlying cause of these problems, our findings emphasize the importance of proactive cardiovascular monitoring and prevention in patients who have depression and are on antidepressants, given that both have been associated with higher risks,” she added.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry Open.
 

Monitoring of CVD risk ‘critical’

Antidepressants are among the most widely prescribed drugs; 70 million prescriptions were dispensed in 2018 alone, representing a doubling of prescriptions for these agents in a decade, the investigators noted. “This striking rise in prescribing is attributed to long-term treatment rather than an increased incidence of depression.”

Most trials that have assessed antidepressant efficacy have been “poorly suited to examining adverse outcomes.” One reason for this is that many of the trials are short-term studies. Since depression is “strongly associated” with CVD risk factors, “careful assessment of the long-term cardiometabolic effects of antidepressant treatment is critical.”

Moreover, information about “a wide range of prospectively measured confounders ... is needed to provide robust estimates of the risks associated with long-term antidepressant use,” the authors noted.

The researchers examined the association between antidepressant use and four cardiometabolic morbidity outcomes – diabetes, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and CHD. In addition, they assessed two mortality outcomes – CVD mortality and all-cause mortality. Participants were divided into cohorts on the basis of outcome of interest.

The dataset contains detailed information on socioeconomic status, demographics, anthropometric, behavioral, and biochemical risk factors, disability, and health status and is linked to datasets of primary care records and deaths.

The study included 222,121 participants whose data had been linked to primary care records during 2018 (median age of participants, 56-57 years). About half were women, and 96% were of White ethnicity.

Participants were excluded if they had been prescribed antidepressants 12 months or less before baseline, if they had previously been diagnosed for the outcome of interest, if they had been previously prescribed psychotropic drugs, if they used cardiometabolic drugs at baseline, or if they had undergone treatment with antidepressant polytherapy.

Potential confounders included age, gender, body mass index, waist/hip ratio, smoking and alcohol intake status, physical activity, parental history of outcome, biochemical and hematologic biomarkers, socioeconomic status, and long-term illness, disability, or infirmity.
 

Mechanism unclear

By the end of the 5- and 10-year follow-up periods, an average of 8% and 6% of participants in each cohort, respectively, had been prescribed an antidepressant. SSRIs constituted the most commonly prescribed class (80%-82%), and citalopram was the most commonly prescribed SSRI (46%-47%). Mirtazapine was the most frequently prescribed non-SSRI antidepressant (44%-46%).

At 5 years, any antidepressant use was associated with an increased risk for diabetes, CHD, and all-cause mortality, but the findings were attenuated after further adjustment for confounders. In fact, SSRIs were associated with a reduced risk of diabetes at 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.83).

At 10 years, SSRIs were associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular disease, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality; non-SSRIs were associated with an increased risk of CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, SSRIs were associated with a decrease in risk of diabetes and hypertension at 10 years (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89, respectively).

“While we have taken into account a wide range of pre-existing risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including those that are linked to depression such as excess weight, smoking, and low physical activity, it is difficult to fully control for the effects of depression in this kind of study, partly because there is considerable variability in the recording of depression severity in primary care,” said Dr. Bansal.

“This is important because many people taking antidepressants such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine and trazodone may have a more severe depression. This makes it difficult to fully separate the effects of the depression from the effects of medication,” she said.

Further research “is needed to assess whether the associations we have seen are genuinely due to the drugs; and, if so, why this might be,” she added.
 

Strengths, limitations

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit at the University of Toronto,, discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

The UK Biobank is a “well-described, well-phenotyped dataset of good quality,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairperson and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study. Another strength is the “impressive number of variables the database contains, which enabled the authors to go much deeper into the topics.”

A “significant limitation” is the confounding that is inherent to the disorder itself – “people with depression have a much higher intrinsic risk of CVD, [cerebrovascular disease], and cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. McIntyre noted.

The researchers did not adjust for trauma or childhood maltreatment, “which are the biggest risk factors for both depression and CVD; and drug and alcohol misuse were also not accounted for.”

Additionally, “to determine whether something is an association or potentially causative, it must satisfy the Bradford-Hill criteria,” said Dr. McIntyre. “Since we’re moving more toward using these big databases and because we depend on them to give us long-term perspectives, we would want to see coherent, compelling Bradford-Hill criteria regarding causation. If you don’t have any, that’s fine too, but then it’s important to make clear that there is no clear causative line, just an association.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Health Research School for Primary Care Research and was supported by the NI Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CI/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute and speaker/consultation fees from numerous companies. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific.

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

Daniel Freedman, DO, a pediatric neurologist in Austin, Tex., remembers being flabbergasted when a surgeon threw an instrument across the room in medical school.

“I remember thinking, ‘I can’t believe people actually do this, a grown man in his 50s having a temper tantrum,’” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. But it certainly wasn’t the last time he witnessed bad behavior by one of his peers.

The results of Medscape’s recent report, Physicians Behaving Badly: Stress and Hardship Trigger Misconduct, suggest he has plenty of company. More than 4 in 10 respondents (41%) observed inappropriate behavior in the workplace in 2022, an uptick from 35% in 2021, according to the report, which polled more than 1,500 physicians about inappropriate behavior on and off the clock.

Of course, 38% of respondents have not seen any instances of misbehavior; and many of the instances that were seen were mild or infrequent. Additionally, instances of bad behavior have declined significantly over the past 5 years.

Dr. Freedman said he learned a lesson from his mentor and program director during training that has stuck with him throughout his career. “If you couldn’t act that way at any job, whether at McDonald’s or any other possible place, you shouldn’t act that way in medicine.” But he recognizes one limitation of that advice. “A lot of the people that behave badly may not have ever worked in a different environment before,” he said.

“They only perceive that they’re at the top of the food chain, so they can behave badly without repercussions.”

What Dr. Freedman described is formally called disruptive physician behavior, one of several categories of inappropriate behavior in medicine, according to Charles Samenow, MD, MPH, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, who has studied this phenomenon for years.

“Disruptive physician behavior compromises the safety of the workplace,” Dr. Samenow explained. The behavior can occur at work, outside of work, or on social media. It can hinder operations, threaten patient and staff safety, and affect workplace morale.

“The question is trying to understand where that bad behavior is coming from and the impact of that bad behavior,” Dr. Samenow said in an interview.

One reason is fairly simple: doctors are human, and humans have a wide range of behavior. Plus, as the Medscape survey showed, the tension, stress, dangerous conditions during COVID, burnout, and other problems have made many physicians tired, frustrated, depressed, and more reactive to situations around them.
 

Self-selecting traits become an Achilles heel

“Any human put in a position of power over other humans has the potential to be disruptive, harass, etc, if they have certain personality traits,” said David Gorski, MD, a professor of surgery at Wayne State University, Detroit. That jibes with Dr. Samenow’s research.

Classic disruptive behavior isn’t usually associated with depression, mania, psychosis, or similar characteristics, Dr. Samenow explained. Rather, it tends to be personality driven. “Physicians are not immune to the normal problems every human being faces,” he said.

In the Medscape report, physicians cited personal arrogance as one of the leading reasons physicians engaged in inappropriate behavior (56%), followed closely by personal problems outside of work (52%), a social shift in accepting more casual behavior (50%), and job-related stress (46%). (Respondents could choose more than one answer).

One factor contributing to misbehavior that Dr. Samenow has consistently identified in his research is a history of adverse childhood experiences or family dysfunction: People who grew up in homes with physical or verbal abuse learned anger as a coping skill instead of positive, assertive communication. It’s likely that some physicians, as well as the overall population, learned anger as a coping skill for that reason.
 

How to help avert disruptive behavior in medical settings

Dr. Samenow said that coaching is a “wonderful tool” in teaching the interpersonal skills that medical school often doesn’t address.

In some case, interventions can be very helpful. For example, programs that teach effective communication strategies and teamwork through a combination of culturally sensitive dialectical and cognitive-behavioral therapy and other modalities have been successful, Dr. Samenow said. Although they are more about treating an illness than addressing “misbehavior,” programs for substance use that have been developed by and for doctors are very effective, too.

Fewer resources are available, however, for addressing racism, classism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry, Dr. Samenow noted. “There’s implicit bias training, but not at the level of what exists for disruptive physicians and those with addiction. “That’s an area we need to work on.” Racist language was the third most commonly observed bad behavior cited in the Medscape survey, behind only bullying of staff and mocking or disparaging of patients. It was reported frequently outside of work as well.

The Medscape report found an increase in observed behavior at work and on social media, although it’s hard to determine prevalence trends over time, Dr. Samenow said. “The tolerance for this behavior has really gone down,” likely leading to more reporting, he said, and more systems for reporting bad behavior exist today than in the past.

However, Dr. Freedman said inadequate regulation, disciplinary action, and follow-through remain a problem.

“There are lots of limitations to our reporting system and to our follow-through with those reports,” including hospitals that, whether for fear of litigation or other reasons, allow physicians to quietly resign and move to another institution, even with positive recommendations, Dr. Freedman said.

Indeed, only a third of observed misbehavior in the Medscape report resulted in disciplinary action. Half the respondents believed a verbal warning was a necessary consequence, followed by a conversation from management and being reported to a supervisor or human resources. Though only 10% thought a report to the medical board was warranted, it likely depends on the offense and its frequency.

“I think going from paternalism to more patient-centered care and having patients involved in those conversations is a nice shift that makes doctors more human and relatable, and hopefully makes the public more forgiving, that we’re going to make mistakes and nobody’s perfect,” Freedman said. But he added that physicians should be held accountable when a mistake or two becomes a pattern.
 

Misinformation is professional misconduct

Sufficient accountability is especially absent, these doctors said, for a subset of professional misconduct: spreading misinformation.

While more “conventional” bad behaviors include fraud, dishonesty, abuse of underlings, and incompetence, bad behavior should also include “selling quackery and antivaccine misinformation, the way some doctors did with various nostrums for COVID-19,” said Dr. Gorski, who frequently blogs about doctors’ spreading misinformation.

Taylor Nichols, MD, an emergency medicine physician based in Sacramento, cites the desire for attention and clout as motivations. “Saying things that are wildly, provably false is professional misconduct,” Nichols said. He distinguished such statements from scientific, academic, or clinical disagreement that is necessary within medicine.

Yet there’s been a “long tradition of looking the other way or letting people with fancy titles get away with saying nonsense just because they’re respected,” Jonathan Howard, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at New York University said in an interview.

“We have a duty to be trusted members of the community,” Dr. Howard said. “People listen when we say things, and we have an obligation to try to be accurate and humble and as honest as possible and admit mistakes when we inevitably make them.”

That extends to social media, which Dr. Nichols said has magnified the problem of promoting quackery and misinformation. He thinks medical boards and professional credentialing bodies should pay attention to what’s happening in the public conversation and understand that our professional responsibility extends beyond the walls of the hospital or clinic. Physicians must represent themselves professionally and uphold the standards that the profession expects.

On the one hand, Medscape respondents agreed: 70% said one doctor’s misbehavior taints the whole profession. Yet, at the same time, 58% of respondents believed physicians should be able to “keep their private lives private” in 2022. But that’s not the reality of the profession when the lines between private life and behavior away from work get blurred, Dr. Samenow said.

“The way a physician behaves in public represents you,” he said. “What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas.”

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

Daniel Freedman, DO, a pediatric neurologist in Austin, Tex., remembers being flabbergasted when a surgeon threw an instrument across the room in medical school.

“I remember thinking, ‘I can’t believe people actually do this, a grown man in his 50s having a temper tantrum,’” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. But it certainly wasn’t the last time he witnessed bad behavior by one of his peers.

The results of Medscape’s recent report, Physicians Behaving Badly: Stress and Hardship Trigger Misconduct, suggest he has plenty of company. More than 4 in 10 respondents (41%) observed inappropriate behavior in the workplace in 2022, an uptick from 35% in 2021, according to the report, which polled more than 1,500 physicians about inappropriate behavior on and off the clock.

Of course, 38% of respondents have not seen any instances of misbehavior; and many of the instances that were seen were mild or infrequent. Additionally, instances of bad behavior have declined significantly over the past 5 years.

Dr. Freedman said he learned a lesson from his mentor and program director during training that has stuck with him throughout his career. “If you couldn’t act that way at any job, whether at McDonald’s or any other possible place, you shouldn’t act that way in medicine.” But he recognizes one limitation of that advice. “A lot of the people that behave badly may not have ever worked in a different environment before,” he said.

“They only perceive that they’re at the top of the food chain, so they can behave badly without repercussions.”

What Dr. Freedman described is formally called disruptive physician behavior, one of several categories of inappropriate behavior in medicine, according to Charles Samenow, MD, MPH, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, who has studied this phenomenon for years.

“Disruptive physician behavior compromises the safety of the workplace,” Dr. Samenow explained. The behavior can occur at work, outside of work, or on social media. It can hinder operations, threaten patient and staff safety, and affect workplace morale.

“The question is trying to understand where that bad behavior is coming from and the impact of that bad behavior,” Dr. Samenow said in an interview.

One reason is fairly simple: doctors are human, and humans have a wide range of behavior. Plus, as the Medscape survey showed, the tension, stress, dangerous conditions during COVID, burnout, and other problems have made many physicians tired, frustrated, depressed, and more reactive to situations around them.
 

Self-selecting traits become an Achilles heel

“Any human put in a position of power over other humans has the potential to be disruptive, harass, etc, if they have certain personality traits,” said David Gorski, MD, a professor of surgery at Wayne State University, Detroit. That jibes with Dr. Samenow’s research.

Classic disruptive behavior isn’t usually associated with depression, mania, psychosis, or similar characteristics, Dr. Samenow explained. Rather, it tends to be personality driven. “Physicians are not immune to the normal problems every human being faces,” he said.

In the Medscape report, physicians cited personal arrogance as one of the leading reasons physicians engaged in inappropriate behavior (56%), followed closely by personal problems outside of work (52%), a social shift in accepting more casual behavior (50%), and job-related stress (46%). (Respondents could choose more than one answer).

One factor contributing to misbehavior that Dr. Samenow has consistently identified in his research is a history of adverse childhood experiences or family dysfunction: People who grew up in homes with physical or verbal abuse learned anger as a coping skill instead of positive, assertive communication. It’s likely that some physicians, as well as the overall population, learned anger as a coping skill for that reason.
 

How to help avert disruptive behavior in medical settings

Dr. Samenow said that coaching is a “wonderful tool” in teaching the interpersonal skills that medical school often doesn’t address.

In some case, interventions can be very helpful. For example, programs that teach effective communication strategies and teamwork through a combination of culturally sensitive dialectical and cognitive-behavioral therapy and other modalities have been successful, Dr. Samenow said. Although they are more about treating an illness than addressing “misbehavior,” programs for substance use that have been developed by and for doctors are very effective, too.

Fewer resources are available, however, for addressing racism, classism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry, Dr. Samenow noted. “There’s implicit bias training, but not at the level of what exists for disruptive physicians and those with addiction. “That’s an area we need to work on.” Racist language was the third most commonly observed bad behavior cited in the Medscape survey, behind only bullying of staff and mocking or disparaging of patients. It was reported frequently outside of work as well.

The Medscape report found an increase in observed behavior at work and on social media, although it’s hard to determine prevalence trends over time, Dr. Samenow said. “The tolerance for this behavior has really gone down,” likely leading to more reporting, he said, and more systems for reporting bad behavior exist today than in the past.

However, Dr. Freedman said inadequate regulation, disciplinary action, and follow-through remain a problem.

“There are lots of limitations to our reporting system and to our follow-through with those reports,” including hospitals that, whether for fear of litigation or other reasons, allow physicians to quietly resign and move to another institution, even with positive recommendations, Dr. Freedman said.

Indeed, only a third of observed misbehavior in the Medscape report resulted in disciplinary action. Half the respondents believed a verbal warning was a necessary consequence, followed by a conversation from management and being reported to a supervisor or human resources. Though only 10% thought a report to the medical board was warranted, it likely depends on the offense and its frequency.

“I think going from paternalism to more patient-centered care and having patients involved in those conversations is a nice shift that makes doctors more human and relatable, and hopefully makes the public more forgiving, that we’re going to make mistakes and nobody’s perfect,” Freedman said. But he added that physicians should be held accountable when a mistake or two becomes a pattern.
 

Misinformation is professional misconduct

Sufficient accountability is especially absent, these doctors said, for a subset of professional misconduct: spreading misinformation.

While more “conventional” bad behaviors include fraud, dishonesty, abuse of underlings, and incompetence, bad behavior should also include “selling quackery and antivaccine misinformation, the way some doctors did with various nostrums for COVID-19,” said Dr. Gorski, who frequently blogs about doctors’ spreading misinformation.

Taylor Nichols, MD, an emergency medicine physician based in Sacramento, cites the desire for attention and clout as motivations. “Saying things that are wildly, provably false is professional misconduct,” Nichols said. He distinguished such statements from scientific, academic, or clinical disagreement that is necessary within medicine.

Yet there’s been a “long tradition of looking the other way or letting people with fancy titles get away with saying nonsense just because they’re respected,” Jonathan Howard, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at New York University said in an interview.

“We have a duty to be trusted members of the community,” Dr. Howard said. “People listen when we say things, and we have an obligation to try to be accurate and humble and as honest as possible and admit mistakes when we inevitably make them.”

That extends to social media, which Dr. Nichols said has magnified the problem of promoting quackery and misinformation. He thinks medical boards and professional credentialing bodies should pay attention to what’s happening in the public conversation and understand that our professional responsibility extends beyond the walls of the hospital or clinic. Physicians must represent themselves professionally and uphold the standards that the profession expects.

On the one hand, Medscape respondents agreed: 70% said one doctor’s misbehavior taints the whole profession. Yet, at the same time, 58% of respondents believed physicians should be able to “keep their private lives private” in 2022. But that’s not the reality of the profession when the lines between private life and behavior away from work get blurred, Dr. Samenow said.

“The way a physician behaves in public represents you,” he said. “What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas.”

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

Daniel Freedman, DO, a pediatric neurologist in Austin, Tex., remembers being flabbergasted when a surgeon threw an instrument across the room in medical school.

“I remember thinking, ‘I can’t believe people actually do this, a grown man in his 50s having a temper tantrum,’” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. But it certainly wasn’t the last time he witnessed bad behavior by one of his peers.

The results of Medscape’s recent report, Physicians Behaving Badly: Stress and Hardship Trigger Misconduct, suggest he has plenty of company. More than 4 in 10 respondents (41%) observed inappropriate behavior in the workplace in 2022, an uptick from 35% in 2021, according to the report, which polled more than 1,500 physicians about inappropriate behavior on and off the clock.

Of course, 38% of respondents have not seen any instances of misbehavior; and many of the instances that were seen were mild or infrequent. Additionally, instances of bad behavior have declined significantly over the past 5 years.

Dr. Freedman said he learned a lesson from his mentor and program director during training that has stuck with him throughout his career. “If you couldn’t act that way at any job, whether at McDonald’s or any other possible place, you shouldn’t act that way in medicine.” But he recognizes one limitation of that advice. “A lot of the people that behave badly may not have ever worked in a different environment before,” he said.

“They only perceive that they’re at the top of the food chain, so they can behave badly without repercussions.”

What Dr. Freedman described is formally called disruptive physician behavior, one of several categories of inappropriate behavior in medicine, according to Charles Samenow, MD, MPH, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, who has studied this phenomenon for years.

“Disruptive physician behavior compromises the safety of the workplace,” Dr. Samenow explained. The behavior can occur at work, outside of work, or on social media. It can hinder operations, threaten patient and staff safety, and affect workplace morale.

“The question is trying to understand where that bad behavior is coming from and the impact of that bad behavior,” Dr. Samenow said in an interview.

One reason is fairly simple: doctors are human, and humans have a wide range of behavior. Plus, as the Medscape survey showed, the tension, stress, dangerous conditions during COVID, burnout, and other problems have made many physicians tired, frustrated, depressed, and more reactive to situations around them.
 

Self-selecting traits become an Achilles heel

“Any human put in a position of power over other humans has the potential to be disruptive, harass, etc, if they have certain personality traits,” said David Gorski, MD, a professor of surgery at Wayne State University, Detroit. That jibes with Dr. Samenow’s research.

Classic disruptive behavior isn’t usually associated with depression, mania, psychosis, or similar characteristics, Dr. Samenow explained. Rather, it tends to be personality driven. “Physicians are not immune to the normal problems every human being faces,” he said.

In the Medscape report, physicians cited personal arrogance as one of the leading reasons physicians engaged in inappropriate behavior (56%), followed closely by personal problems outside of work (52%), a social shift in accepting more casual behavior (50%), and job-related stress (46%). (Respondents could choose more than one answer).

One factor contributing to misbehavior that Dr. Samenow has consistently identified in his research is a history of adverse childhood experiences or family dysfunction: People who grew up in homes with physical or verbal abuse learned anger as a coping skill instead of positive, assertive communication. It’s likely that some physicians, as well as the overall population, learned anger as a coping skill for that reason.
 

How to help avert disruptive behavior in medical settings

Dr. Samenow said that coaching is a “wonderful tool” in teaching the interpersonal skills that medical school often doesn’t address.

In some case, interventions can be very helpful. For example, programs that teach effective communication strategies and teamwork through a combination of culturally sensitive dialectical and cognitive-behavioral therapy and other modalities have been successful, Dr. Samenow said. Although they are more about treating an illness than addressing “misbehavior,” programs for substance use that have been developed by and for doctors are very effective, too.

Fewer resources are available, however, for addressing racism, classism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry, Dr. Samenow noted. “There’s implicit bias training, but not at the level of what exists for disruptive physicians and those with addiction. “That’s an area we need to work on.” Racist language was the third most commonly observed bad behavior cited in the Medscape survey, behind only bullying of staff and mocking or disparaging of patients. It was reported frequently outside of work as well.

The Medscape report found an increase in observed behavior at work and on social media, although it’s hard to determine prevalence trends over time, Dr. Samenow said. “The tolerance for this behavior has really gone down,” likely leading to more reporting, he said, and more systems for reporting bad behavior exist today than in the past.

However, Dr. Freedman said inadequate regulation, disciplinary action, and follow-through remain a problem.

“There are lots of limitations to our reporting system and to our follow-through with those reports,” including hospitals that, whether for fear of litigation or other reasons, allow physicians to quietly resign and move to another institution, even with positive recommendations, Dr. Freedman said.

Indeed, only a third of observed misbehavior in the Medscape report resulted in disciplinary action. Half the respondents believed a verbal warning was a necessary consequence, followed by a conversation from management and being reported to a supervisor or human resources. Though only 10% thought a report to the medical board was warranted, it likely depends on the offense and its frequency.

“I think going from paternalism to more patient-centered care and having patients involved in those conversations is a nice shift that makes doctors more human and relatable, and hopefully makes the public more forgiving, that we’re going to make mistakes and nobody’s perfect,” Freedman said. But he added that physicians should be held accountable when a mistake or two becomes a pattern.
 

Misinformation is professional misconduct

Sufficient accountability is especially absent, these doctors said, for a subset of professional misconduct: spreading misinformation.

While more “conventional” bad behaviors include fraud, dishonesty, abuse of underlings, and incompetence, bad behavior should also include “selling quackery and antivaccine misinformation, the way some doctors did with various nostrums for COVID-19,” said Dr. Gorski, who frequently blogs about doctors’ spreading misinformation.

Taylor Nichols, MD, an emergency medicine physician based in Sacramento, cites the desire for attention and clout as motivations. “Saying things that are wildly, provably false is professional misconduct,” Nichols said. He distinguished such statements from scientific, academic, or clinical disagreement that is necessary within medicine.

Yet there’s been a “long tradition of looking the other way or letting people with fancy titles get away with saying nonsense just because they’re respected,” Jonathan Howard, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at New York University said in an interview.

“We have a duty to be trusted members of the community,” Dr. Howard said. “People listen when we say things, and we have an obligation to try to be accurate and humble and as honest as possible and admit mistakes when we inevitably make them.”

That extends to social media, which Dr. Nichols said has magnified the problem of promoting quackery and misinformation. He thinks medical boards and professional credentialing bodies should pay attention to what’s happening in the public conversation and understand that our professional responsibility extends beyond the walls of the hospital or clinic. Physicians must represent themselves professionally and uphold the standards that the profession expects.

On the one hand, Medscape respondents agreed: 70% said one doctor’s misbehavior taints the whole profession. Yet, at the same time, 58% of respondents believed physicians should be able to “keep their private lives private” in 2022. But that’s not the reality of the profession when the lines between private life and behavior away from work get blurred, Dr. Samenow said.

“The way a physician behaves in public represents you,” he said. “What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas.”

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

Starting treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with extended-release naltrexone injections in the emergency department produced a dramatic reduction in alcohol consumption, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The results show the feasibility of such a program and underscore the importance of the ED in combating AUD, said the researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco.

“According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 18% of ED visits had alcohol as a contributing factor – the volume of alcohol-related ED visits has been climbing every year, and it is a significant public health problem,” said Maria Raven, MD, MPH, professor of emergency medicine at UCSF. “Right now, we do very little for people who come to the ED with AUD, so it is a missed opportunity to intervene, especially given the volume of visits we see and that our patient population is one that often has significant barriers to accessing outpatient treatment.”

The findings come from a 12-week, prospective, single-arm study of ED patients who were actively drinking adults with known or suspected AUD and who had positive scores on a screening test. Of 179 patients who were approached, 32 agreed to enroll; the enrollment yield was 18%. Participants were given monthly extended-release naltrexone and case management services.

Of the 32 participants, 25 completed all their study visits and 22 (69%) continued taking naltrexone after the 12 weeks.

The researchers said the results surprised them. The average daily alcohol consumption at baseline was 7.6 drinks a day, and it fell by 7.5 drinks a day – in other words, to almost no consumption.

“The median alcohol consumption when measured over the last 2 weeks of the study was zero,” Dr. Raven said. “This doesn’t mean everyone was at zero, but this was the median and reflects that many participants stopped drinking altogether. We were pleasantly surprised by this. I don’t know that we thought so many people who participated would actually fully abstain.”

On the Kemp Quality of Life Scale – with scores from 1 to 7, with 1 being “life is very distressing,” 4 being “life is so-so,” and 7 being “life is great” – the average baseline score was 3.6. That score rose by 1.2 points by the study’s end.

Dr. Raven said she hoped more would enroll but that “a number of people actually did not want the injection or were not ready to think about stopping.” Still, the 18% enrollment is “a major improvement,” considering that no attempt was made to initiate treatment with naltrexone prior to the study. Oral naltrexone, rather than the injection, could be offered to improve participation, but oral naltrexone has to be taken daily.

She said a larger study is planned at UCSF and that other institutions are interested in starting a similar program.

“When someone is in the ED for an AUD-related issue, it can serve as a turning point for them in some cases,” she said.

Erik S. Anderson, MD, associate research director at Oakland, Calif.–based Alameda Health System, who has studied naltrexone in the ED, said the findings dovetail with what his team has found at his center. He added that psychosocial support is important as well and that his team has found that navigation services are the most important factor in connecting patients with follow-up care – even more so than providing medications.

“In my mind, this is a situation where we have treatment options and approaches that work, and it’s really about implementing these services in a novel care setting,” he said. “ED patients are at higher risk of complications for AUD simply because they are in the ED in the first place – initiating AUD treatment in this setting is the right thing to do.”

Dr. Raven and Dr. Anderson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Starting treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with extended-release naltrexone injections in the emergency department produced a dramatic reduction in alcohol consumption, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The results show the feasibility of such a program and underscore the importance of the ED in combating AUD, said the researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco.

“According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 18% of ED visits had alcohol as a contributing factor – the volume of alcohol-related ED visits has been climbing every year, and it is a significant public health problem,” said Maria Raven, MD, MPH, professor of emergency medicine at UCSF. “Right now, we do very little for people who come to the ED with AUD, so it is a missed opportunity to intervene, especially given the volume of visits we see and that our patient population is one that often has significant barriers to accessing outpatient treatment.”

The findings come from a 12-week, prospective, single-arm study of ED patients who were actively drinking adults with known or suspected AUD and who had positive scores on a screening test. Of 179 patients who were approached, 32 agreed to enroll; the enrollment yield was 18%. Participants were given monthly extended-release naltrexone and case management services.

Of the 32 participants, 25 completed all their study visits and 22 (69%) continued taking naltrexone after the 12 weeks.

The researchers said the results surprised them. The average daily alcohol consumption at baseline was 7.6 drinks a day, and it fell by 7.5 drinks a day – in other words, to almost no consumption.

“The median alcohol consumption when measured over the last 2 weeks of the study was zero,” Dr. Raven said. “This doesn’t mean everyone was at zero, but this was the median and reflects that many participants stopped drinking altogether. We were pleasantly surprised by this. I don’t know that we thought so many people who participated would actually fully abstain.”

On the Kemp Quality of Life Scale – with scores from 1 to 7, with 1 being “life is very distressing,” 4 being “life is so-so,” and 7 being “life is great” – the average baseline score was 3.6. That score rose by 1.2 points by the study’s end.

Dr. Raven said she hoped more would enroll but that “a number of people actually did not want the injection or were not ready to think about stopping.” Still, the 18% enrollment is “a major improvement,” considering that no attempt was made to initiate treatment with naltrexone prior to the study. Oral naltrexone, rather than the injection, could be offered to improve participation, but oral naltrexone has to be taken daily.

She said a larger study is planned at UCSF and that other institutions are interested in starting a similar program.

“When someone is in the ED for an AUD-related issue, it can serve as a turning point for them in some cases,” she said.

Erik S. Anderson, MD, associate research director at Oakland, Calif.–based Alameda Health System, who has studied naltrexone in the ED, said the findings dovetail with what his team has found at his center. He added that psychosocial support is important as well and that his team has found that navigation services are the most important factor in connecting patients with follow-up care – even more so than providing medications.

“In my mind, this is a situation where we have treatment options and approaches that work, and it’s really about implementing these services in a novel care setting,” he said. “ED patients are at higher risk of complications for AUD simply because they are in the ED in the first place – initiating AUD treatment in this setting is the right thing to do.”

Dr. Raven and Dr. Anderson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Starting treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with extended-release naltrexone injections in the emergency department produced a dramatic reduction in alcohol consumption, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The results show the feasibility of such a program and underscore the importance of the ED in combating AUD, said the researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco.

“According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 18% of ED visits had alcohol as a contributing factor – the volume of alcohol-related ED visits has been climbing every year, and it is a significant public health problem,” said Maria Raven, MD, MPH, professor of emergency medicine at UCSF. “Right now, we do very little for people who come to the ED with AUD, so it is a missed opportunity to intervene, especially given the volume of visits we see and that our patient population is one that often has significant barriers to accessing outpatient treatment.”

The findings come from a 12-week, prospective, single-arm study of ED patients who were actively drinking adults with known or suspected AUD and who had positive scores on a screening test. Of 179 patients who were approached, 32 agreed to enroll; the enrollment yield was 18%. Participants were given monthly extended-release naltrexone and case management services.

Of the 32 participants, 25 completed all their study visits and 22 (69%) continued taking naltrexone after the 12 weeks.

The researchers said the results surprised them. The average daily alcohol consumption at baseline was 7.6 drinks a day, and it fell by 7.5 drinks a day – in other words, to almost no consumption.

“The median alcohol consumption when measured over the last 2 weeks of the study was zero,” Dr. Raven said. “This doesn’t mean everyone was at zero, but this was the median and reflects that many participants stopped drinking altogether. We were pleasantly surprised by this. I don’t know that we thought so many people who participated would actually fully abstain.”

On the Kemp Quality of Life Scale – with scores from 1 to 7, with 1 being “life is very distressing,” 4 being “life is so-so,” and 7 being “life is great” – the average baseline score was 3.6. That score rose by 1.2 points by the study’s end.

Dr. Raven said she hoped more would enroll but that “a number of people actually did not want the injection or were not ready to think about stopping.” Still, the 18% enrollment is “a major improvement,” considering that no attempt was made to initiate treatment with naltrexone prior to the study. Oral naltrexone, rather than the injection, could be offered to improve participation, but oral naltrexone has to be taken daily.

She said a larger study is planned at UCSF and that other institutions are interested in starting a similar program.

“When someone is in the ED for an AUD-related issue, it can serve as a turning point for them in some cases,” she said.

Erik S. Anderson, MD, associate research director at Oakland, Calif.–based Alameda Health System, who has studied naltrexone in the ED, said the findings dovetail with what his team has found at his center. He added that psychosocial support is important as well and that his team has found that navigation services are the most important factor in connecting patients with follow-up care – even more so than providing medications.

“In my mind, this is a situation where we have treatment options and approaches that work, and it’s really about implementing these services in a novel care setting,” he said. “ED patients are at higher risk of complications for AUD simply because they are in the ED in the first place – initiating AUD treatment in this setting is the right thing to do.”

Dr. Raven and Dr. Anderson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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