Federal Practitioner

Recent studies with hallucinogens have raised hopes for an effective drug-based therapy to treat chronic depression. At the German Congress of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Torsten Passie, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychotherapy at the Hannover (Germay) Medical School, gave a presentation on the current state of psilocybin and ketamine/esketamine research.

Dr. Passie, who also is head physician of the specialist unit for addiction and addiction prevention at the Diakonisches Werk in Hannover, has been investigating hallucinogenic substances and their application in psychotherapy for decades.

New therapies sought

In depression, gloom extends beyond the patient’s mood. For some time there has been little cause for joy with regard to chronic depression therapy. Established drug therapies hardly perform any better than placebo in meta-analyses, as a study recently confirmed. The pharmaceutical industry pulled out of psycho-pharmaceutical development more than 10 years ago. What’s more, the number of cases is rising, especially among young people, and there are long waiting times for psychotherapy appointments.

It is no wonder that some are welcoming new drug-based approaches with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)–like hallucinogens. In 2016, a study on psilocybin was published in The Lancet Psychiatry, although the study was unblinded and included only 24 patients.
 

Evoking emotions

A range of substances can be classed as hallucinogens, including psilocybin, mescaline, LSD, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA, also known as ecstasy), and ketamine.

Taking hallucinogens can cause a release of serotonin and dopamine, an increase in activity levels in the brain, a shift in stimulus filtering, an increase in the production of internal stimuli (inner experiences), and a change in sensory integration (for example, synesthesia).

Besides falling into a dreamlike state, patients can achieve an expansion or narrowing of consciousness if they focus on an inner experience. Internal perception increases. Perceptual routines are broken apart. Thought processes become more image-based and are more associative than normal.

Patients therefore are more capable of making new and unusual connections between different biographical or current situations. Previously unconscious ideas can become conscious. At higher doses, ego loss can occur, which can be associated with a mystical feeling of connectedness.

Hallucinogens mainly evoke and heighten emotions. Those effects may be experienced strongly as internal visions or in physical manifestations (for example, crying or laughing). In contrast, conventional antidepressants work by suppressing emotions (that is, emotional blunting).

These different mechanisms result in two contrasting management strategies. For example, SSRI antidepressants cause a patient to perceive workplace bullying as less severe and to do nothing to change the situation; the patient remains passive.

In contrast, a therapeutically guided, emotionally activating experience on hallucinogens can help the patient to try more actively to change the stressful situation.

Ketamine has a special place among hallucinogens. Unlike other hallucinogens, ketamine causes a strong clouding of consciousness, a reduction in physical sensory perception, and significant disruption in thinking and memory. It is therefore only suitable as a short-term intervention and is therapeutically impractical over the long term.
 

Ketamine’s effects

Ketamine, a racemic mixture of the enantiomers S-ketamine and R-ketamine, was originally used only as an analgesic and anesthetic. Owing to its rapid antidepressant effect, it has since also been used as an emergency medication for severe depression, sometimes in combination with SSRIs or serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors.

Approximately 60% of patients respond to the treatment. Whereas with conventional antidepressants, onset of action requires 10-14 days, ketamine is effective within a few hours. However, relapse always occurs, usually very quickly. After 2-3 days, the effect is usually approximately that of a placebo. An administration interval of about 2 days is optimal. However, “resistance” to the effect often develops after some time: the drug’s antidepressant effect diminishes.

Ketamine also has some unpleasant side effects, such as depersonalization, dissociation, impaired thinking, nystagmus, and psychotomimetic effects. Nausea and vomiting also occur. Interestingly, the latter does not bother the patient much, owing to the drug’s psychological effects, and it does not lead to treatment discontinuation, said Dr. Passie, who described his clinical experiences with ketamine.

Since ketamine causes a considerable clouding of consciousness, sensory disorders, and significant memory problems, it is not suitable for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, unlike LSD or psilocybin, he emphasized.
 

Ketamine 2.0?

Esketamine, the pure S-enantiomer of ketamine, has been on the market since 2019 in the form of a nasal spray (Spravato). Esketamine has been approved in combination with oral antidepressant therapy for adults with a moderate to severe episode of major depression for acute treatment of a psychiatric emergency.

A meta-analysis from 2022 concluded that the original racemic ketamine is better than the new esketamine in reducing symptoms of depression.

In his own comprehensive study, Dr. Passie concluded that the mental impairments that occur during therapy did not differ significantly between substances. The patients even felt that the side effects from esketamine therapy were much more mentally unpleasant, said Dr. Passie. He concluded that the R-enantiomer may have a kind of protective effect against some of the psychopathological effects of the S-enantiomer (esketamine).

In addition, preclinical studies have indicated that the antidepressant effects of R-enantiomer, which is not contained in esketamine, are longer lasting and stronger.

Another problem is absorption, which can be inconsistent with a nasal spray. It may differ, for example, depending on the ambient humidity or whether the patient has recently had a cold. In addition, the spray is far more expensive than the ketamine injection, said Dr. Passie. Patients must also use the nasal spray under supervision at a medical practice (as with the intravenous application) and must receive follow-up care there. It therefore offers no advantage over the ketamine injection.

According to the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare, no additional benefit has been proven for esketamine over standard therapies for adults who have experienced a moderate to severe depressive episode when used as short-term treatment for the rapid reduction of depressive symptoms in a psychiatric emergency. The German Medical Association agreed with this evaluation in October 2021.

In the United Kingdom, the medication was never approved, owing to the fact that it was too expensive and that no studies comparing it with psychotherapy were available.
 

Add-on psilocybin?

While ketamine is only suitable for acute intervention, owing to the short duration of effect, the effects of psilocybin can last for weeks or even months following administration, and this has been seen in more than just a few patients. What was experienced under the influence of psilocybin can also be subsequently processed and used in psychotherapy.

The acute effect of psilocybin begins after approximately 40 minutes and lasts for 4-6 hours. The antidepressant effect, if it occurs at all, is of immediate onset. Unlike ketamine/esketamine, psilocybin hardly has any physical side effects.

The neurologic mechanism of action has been investigated recently using fMRI and PET techniques. According to the investigations, the substance causes individual networks of activity in the patient’s brain to interconnect more strongly, said Dr. Passie. The thalamus, the filter station for sensory information, as well as the limbic and paralimbic structures, which generate emotions, and the cortex are all activated more strongly.
 

Two therapeutic settings

Psilocybin, at least in the context of studies, is used in two settings: psycholytic therapy and psychedelic therapy. Both settings originated in the 1950s and were also used with LSD as the active substance.

Psycholytic therapy with psilocybin entails multiple administrations at low doses (for example, 10-18 mg), incorporated into a longer, mostly psychodynamic therapy of around 50-100 hours (often on an inpatient basis at the beginning). It results in what is described as an extended encounter with oneself. The focus is on psychodynamic experiences, such as memories and internal conflicts. In addition, novel experiences with oneself and self-recognition are important.

Psychedelic therapy generally entails one or two sessions with a high dose (for example, 25-35 mg psilocybin). The preparation and follow-up are limited to a few sessions. These methods refer to so-called transpersonal psychology, which addresses extraordinary states of consciousness in line with religious experiences. It often leads to an intense self-confrontation as well as to new evaluations of self and world. The central element to this therapy is the experience of a mystical ego loss and the concomitant feeling of connectedness, which should help to expand one’s perspective.
 

Euphoria and disillusionment

The first promising studies with a few patients suffering from depression were followed by others in which the euphoria was allowed to fade away somewhat. In the first direct comparison in a methodically high-grade double-blind study, psilocybin was inferior to the SSRI antidepressant escitalopram.

“There is a great variation in response from person to person,” said Dr. Passie. “The better the study is methodically controlled, the worse the results,” he hypothesized.

“Since the method is up to 50 times more expensive in practice, compared to SSRI therapy over 6-12 weeks, the question clearly must be asked as to whether it really has any great future.”
 

Outlook for psilocybin

Nevertheless, Dr. Passie still sees potential in psilocybin. He considers an approach in which psilocybin therapy is more firmly incorporated into psychotherapy, with between four and 10 therapy sessions before and after administration of a lower therapeutic dose of the substance, to be more promising.

“With this kind of intensive preparation and follow-up, as well as the repeated psilocybin sessions, the patient can benefit much more than is possible with one or two high-dose sessions,” said Dr. Passie, who also is chair of the International Society for Substance-Assisted Psychotherapy. “The constant ‘in-depth work on the ego’ required for drastic therapeutic changes can be more effective and lead to permanent improvements. I have no doubt about this.”

In Dr. Passie’s opinion, the best approach would involve a dignified inpatient setting with a longer period of follow-up care and consistent posttreatment care, including group therapy. The shape of future psilocybin therapy depends on whether the rather abrupt change seen with high-dose psychedelic therapy is permanent. The answer to this question will be decisive for the method and manner of its future clinical use.

Because of the somewhat negative study results, however, the initial investors are pulling out. Dr. Passie is therefore skeptical about whether the necessary larger studies will take place and whether psilocybin will make it onto the market.

In Switzerland, which is not subject to EU restrictions, more than 30 physicians have been authorized to use psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA in psychotherapy sessions. Still, in some respects this is a special case that cannot be transferred easily to other countries, said Dr. Passie.
 

Possible psilocybin improvement?

Various chemical derivatives of psychoactive substances have been researched, including a psilocybin variant with the label CYB003. With CYB003, the length of the acute psychedelic experience is reduced from around 6 hours (such as with psilocybin) to 1 hour. The plasma concentration of the substance is less variable between different patients. It is assumed that its effects will also differ less from person to person.

In July, researchers began a study of the use of CYB003 in the treatment of major depression. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 40 patients, multiple doses of the substance will be administered.

When asked, Dr. Passie was rather skeptical about the study. He considers the approaches with psilocybin derivatives to be the consequences of a “gold-rush atmosphere” and expects there will be no real additional benefit, especially not a reduction in the period of action.

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

Recent studies with hallucinogens have raised hopes for an effective drug-based therapy to treat chronic depression. At the German Congress of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Torsten Passie, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychotherapy at the Hannover (Germay) Medical School, gave a presentation on the current state of psilocybin and ketamine/esketamine research.

Dr. Passie, who also is head physician of the specialist unit for addiction and addiction prevention at the Diakonisches Werk in Hannover, has been investigating hallucinogenic substances and their application in psychotherapy for decades.

New therapies sought

In depression, gloom extends beyond the patient’s mood. For some time there has been little cause for joy with regard to chronic depression therapy. Established drug therapies hardly perform any better than placebo in meta-analyses, as a study recently confirmed. The pharmaceutical industry pulled out of psycho-pharmaceutical development more than 10 years ago. What’s more, the number of cases is rising, especially among young people, and there are long waiting times for psychotherapy appointments.

It is no wonder that some are welcoming new drug-based approaches with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)–like hallucinogens. In 2016, a study on psilocybin was published in The Lancet Psychiatry, although the study was unblinded and included only 24 patients.
 

Evoking emotions

A range of substances can be classed as hallucinogens, including psilocybin, mescaline, LSD, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA, also known as ecstasy), and ketamine.

Taking hallucinogens can cause a release of serotonin and dopamine, an increase in activity levels in the brain, a shift in stimulus filtering, an increase in the production of internal stimuli (inner experiences), and a change in sensory integration (for example, synesthesia).

Besides falling into a dreamlike state, patients can achieve an expansion or narrowing of consciousness if they focus on an inner experience. Internal perception increases. Perceptual routines are broken apart. Thought processes become more image-based and are more associative than normal.

Patients therefore are more capable of making new and unusual connections between different biographical or current situations. Previously unconscious ideas can become conscious. At higher doses, ego loss can occur, which can be associated with a mystical feeling of connectedness.

Hallucinogens mainly evoke and heighten emotions. Those effects may be experienced strongly as internal visions or in physical manifestations (for example, crying or laughing). In contrast, conventional antidepressants work by suppressing emotions (that is, emotional blunting).

These different mechanisms result in two contrasting management strategies. For example, SSRI antidepressants cause a patient to perceive workplace bullying as less severe and to do nothing to change the situation; the patient remains passive.

In contrast, a therapeutically guided, emotionally activating experience on hallucinogens can help the patient to try more actively to change the stressful situation.

Ketamine has a special place among hallucinogens. Unlike other hallucinogens, ketamine causes a strong clouding of consciousness, a reduction in physical sensory perception, and significant disruption in thinking and memory. It is therefore only suitable as a short-term intervention and is therapeutically impractical over the long term.
 

Ketamine’s effects

Ketamine, a racemic mixture of the enantiomers S-ketamine and R-ketamine, was originally used only as an analgesic and anesthetic. Owing to its rapid antidepressant effect, it has since also been used as an emergency medication for severe depression, sometimes in combination with SSRIs or serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors.

Approximately 60% of patients respond to the treatment. Whereas with conventional antidepressants, onset of action requires 10-14 days, ketamine is effective within a few hours. However, relapse always occurs, usually very quickly. After 2-3 days, the effect is usually approximately that of a placebo. An administration interval of about 2 days is optimal. However, “resistance” to the effect often develops after some time: the drug’s antidepressant effect diminishes.

Ketamine also has some unpleasant side effects, such as depersonalization, dissociation, impaired thinking, nystagmus, and psychotomimetic effects. Nausea and vomiting also occur. Interestingly, the latter does not bother the patient much, owing to the drug’s psychological effects, and it does not lead to treatment discontinuation, said Dr. Passie, who described his clinical experiences with ketamine.

Since ketamine causes a considerable clouding of consciousness, sensory disorders, and significant memory problems, it is not suitable for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, unlike LSD or psilocybin, he emphasized.
 

Ketamine 2.0?

Esketamine, the pure S-enantiomer of ketamine, has been on the market since 2019 in the form of a nasal spray (Spravato). Esketamine has been approved in combination with oral antidepressant therapy for adults with a moderate to severe episode of major depression for acute treatment of a psychiatric emergency.

A meta-analysis from 2022 concluded that the original racemic ketamine is better than the new esketamine in reducing symptoms of depression.

In his own comprehensive study, Dr. Passie concluded that the mental impairments that occur during therapy did not differ significantly between substances. The patients even felt that the side effects from esketamine therapy were much more mentally unpleasant, said Dr. Passie. He concluded that the R-enantiomer may have a kind of protective effect against some of the psychopathological effects of the S-enantiomer (esketamine).

In addition, preclinical studies have indicated that the antidepressant effects of R-enantiomer, which is not contained in esketamine, are longer lasting and stronger.

Another problem is absorption, which can be inconsistent with a nasal spray. It may differ, for example, depending on the ambient humidity or whether the patient has recently had a cold. In addition, the spray is far more expensive than the ketamine injection, said Dr. Passie. Patients must also use the nasal spray under supervision at a medical practice (as with the intravenous application) and must receive follow-up care there. It therefore offers no advantage over the ketamine injection.

According to the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare, no additional benefit has been proven for esketamine over standard therapies for adults who have experienced a moderate to severe depressive episode when used as short-term treatment for the rapid reduction of depressive symptoms in a psychiatric emergency. The German Medical Association agreed with this evaluation in October 2021.

In the United Kingdom, the medication was never approved, owing to the fact that it was too expensive and that no studies comparing it with psychotherapy were available.
 

Add-on psilocybin?

While ketamine is only suitable for acute intervention, owing to the short duration of effect, the effects of psilocybin can last for weeks or even months following administration, and this has been seen in more than just a few patients. What was experienced under the influence of psilocybin can also be subsequently processed and used in psychotherapy.

The acute effect of psilocybin begins after approximately 40 minutes and lasts for 4-6 hours. The antidepressant effect, if it occurs at all, is of immediate onset. Unlike ketamine/esketamine, psilocybin hardly has any physical side effects.

The neurologic mechanism of action has been investigated recently using fMRI and PET techniques. According to the investigations, the substance causes individual networks of activity in the patient’s brain to interconnect more strongly, said Dr. Passie. The thalamus, the filter station for sensory information, as well as the limbic and paralimbic structures, which generate emotions, and the cortex are all activated more strongly.
 

Two therapeutic settings

Psilocybin, at least in the context of studies, is used in two settings: psycholytic therapy and psychedelic therapy. Both settings originated in the 1950s and were also used with LSD as the active substance.

Psycholytic therapy with psilocybin entails multiple administrations at low doses (for example, 10-18 mg), incorporated into a longer, mostly psychodynamic therapy of around 50-100 hours (often on an inpatient basis at the beginning). It results in what is described as an extended encounter with oneself. The focus is on psychodynamic experiences, such as memories and internal conflicts. In addition, novel experiences with oneself and self-recognition are important.

Psychedelic therapy generally entails one or two sessions with a high dose (for example, 25-35 mg psilocybin). The preparation and follow-up are limited to a few sessions. These methods refer to so-called transpersonal psychology, which addresses extraordinary states of consciousness in line with religious experiences. It often leads to an intense self-confrontation as well as to new evaluations of self and world. The central element to this therapy is the experience of a mystical ego loss and the concomitant feeling of connectedness, which should help to expand one’s perspective.
 

Euphoria and disillusionment

The first promising studies with a few patients suffering from depression were followed by others in which the euphoria was allowed to fade away somewhat. In the first direct comparison in a methodically high-grade double-blind study, psilocybin was inferior to the SSRI antidepressant escitalopram.

“There is a great variation in response from person to person,” said Dr. Passie. “The better the study is methodically controlled, the worse the results,” he hypothesized.

“Since the method is up to 50 times more expensive in practice, compared to SSRI therapy over 6-12 weeks, the question clearly must be asked as to whether it really has any great future.”
 

Outlook for psilocybin

Nevertheless, Dr. Passie still sees potential in psilocybin. He considers an approach in which psilocybin therapy is more firmly incorporated into psychotherapy, with between four and 10 therapy sessions before and after administration of a lower therapeutic dose of the substance, to be more promising.

“With this kind of intensive preparation and follow-up, as well as the repeated psilocybin sessions, the patient can benefit much more than is possible with one or two high-dose sessions,” said Dr. Passie, who also is chair of the International Society for Substance-Assisted Psychotherapy. “The constant ‘in-depth work on the ego’ required for drastic therapeutic changes can be more effective and lead to permanent improvements. I have no doubt about this.”

In Dr. Passie’s opinion, the best approach would involve a dignified inpatient setting with a longer period of follow-up care and consistent posttreatment care, including group therapy. The shape of future psilocybin therapy depends on whether the rather abrupt change seen with high-dose psychedelic therapy is permanent. The answer to this question will be decisive for the method and manner of its future clinical use.

Because of the somewhat negative study results, however, the initial investors are pulling out. Dr. Passie is therefore skeptical about whether the necessary larger studies will take place and whether psilocybin will make it onto the market.

In Switzerland, which is not subject to EU restrictions, more than 30 physicians have been authorized to use psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA in psychotherapy sessions. Still, in some respects this is a special case that cannot be transferred easily to other countries, said Dr. Passie.
 

Possible psilocybin improvement?

Various chemical derivatives of psychoactive substances have been researched, including a psilocybin variant with the label CYB003. With CYB003, the length of the acute psychedelic experience is reduced from around 6 hours (such as with psilocybin) to 1 hour. The plasma concentration of the substance is less variable between different patients. It is assumed that its effects will also differ less from person to person.

In July, researchers began a study of the use of CYB003 in the treatment of major depression. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 40 patients, multiple doses of the substance will be administered.

When asked, Dr. Passie was rather skeptical about the study. He considers the approaches with psilocybin derivatives to be the consequences of a “gold-rush atmosphere” and expects there will be no real additional benefit, especially not a reduction in the period of action.

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

Recent studies with hallucinogens have raised hopes for an effective drug-based therapy to treat chronic depression. At the German Congress of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Torsten Passie, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychotherapy at the Hannover (Germay) Medical School, gave a presentation on the current state of psilocybin and ketamine/esketamine research.

Dr. Passie, who also is head physician of the specialist unit for addiction and addiction prevention at the Diakonisches Werk in Hannover, has been investigating hallucinogenic substances and their application in psychotherapy for decades.

New therapies sought

In depression, gloom extends beyond the patient’s mood. For some time there has been little cause for joy with regard to chronic depression therapy. Established drug therapies hardly perform any better than placebo in meta-analyses, as a study recently confirmed. The pharmaceutical industry pulled out of psycho-pharmaceutical development more than 10 years ago. What’s more, the number of cases is rising, especially among young people, and there are long waiting times for psychotherapy appointments.

It is no wonder that some are welcoming new drug-based approaches with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)–like hallucinogens. In 2016, a study on psilocybin was published in The Lancet Psychiatry, although the study was unblinded and included only 24 patients.
 

Evoking emotions

A range of substances can be classed as hallucinogens, including psilocybin, mescaline, LSD, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA, also known as ecstasy), and ketamine.

Taking hallucinogens can cause a release of serotonin and dopamine, an increase in activity levels in the brain, a shift in stimulus filtering, an increase in the production of internal stimuli (inner experiences), and a change in sensory integration (for example, synesthesia).

Besides falling into a dreamlike state, patients can achieve an expansion or narrowing of consciousness if they focus on an inner experience. Internal perception increases. Perceptual routines are broken apart. Thought processes become more image-based and are more associative than normal.

Patients therefore are more capable of making new and unusual connections between different biographical or current situations. Previously unconscious ideas can become conscious. At higher doses, ego loss can occur, which can be associated with a mystical feeling of connectedness.

Hallucinogens mainly evoke and heighten emotions. Those effects may be experienced strongly as internal visions or in physical manifestations (for example, crying or laughing). In contrast, conventional antidepressants work by suppressing emotions (that is, emotional blunting).

These different mechanisms result in two contrasting management strategies. For example, SSRI antidepressants cause a patient to perceive workplace bullying as less severe and to do nothing to change the situation; the patient remains passive.

In contrast, a therapeutically guided, emotionally activating experience on hallucinogens can help the patient to try more actively to change the stressful situation.

Ketamine has a special place among hallucinogens. Unlike other hallucinogens, ketamine causes a strong clouding of consciousness, a reduction in physical sensory perception, and significant disruption in thinking and memory. It is therefore only suitable as a short-term intervention and is therapeutically impractical over the long term.
 

Ketamine’s effects

Ketamine, a racemic mixture of the enantiomers S-ketamine and R-ketamine, was originally used only as an analgesic and anesthetic. Owing to its rapid antidepressant effect, it has since also been used as an emergency medication for severe depression, sometimes in combination with SSRIs or serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors.

Approximately 60% of patients respond to the treatment. Whereas with conventional antidepressants, onset of action requires 10-14 days, ketamine is effective within a few hours. However, relapse always occurs, usually very quickly. After 2-3 days, the effect is usually approximately that of a placebo. An administration interval of about 2 days is optimal. However, “resistance” to the effect often develops after some time: the drug’s antidepressant effect diminishes.

Ketamine also has some unpleasant side effects, such as depersonalization, dissociation, impaired thinking, nystagmus, and psychotomimetic effects. Nausea and vomiting also occur. Interestingly, the latter does not bother the patient much, owing to the drug’s psychological effects, and it does not lead to treatment discontinuation, said Dr. Passie, who described his clinical experiences with ketamine.

Since ketamine causes a considerable clouding of consciousness, sensory disorders, and significant memory problems, it is not suitable for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, unlike LSD or psilocybin, he emphasized.
 

Ketamine 2.0?

Esketamine, the pure S-enantiomer of ketamine, has been on the market since 2019 in the form of a nasal spray (Spravato). Esketamine has been approved in combination with oral antidepressant therapy for adults with a moderate to severe episode of major depression for acute treatment of a psychiatric emergency.

A meta-analysis from 2022 concluded that the original racemic ketamine is better than the new esketamine in reducing symptoms of depression.

In his own comprehensive study, Dr. Passie concluded that the mental impairments that occur during therapy did not differ significantly between substances. The patients even felt that the side effects from esketamine therapy were much more mentally unpleasant, said Dr. Passie. He concluded that the R-enantiomer may have a kind of protective effect against some of the psychopathological effects of the S-enantiomer (esketamine).

In addition, preclinical studies have indicated that the antidepressant effects of R-enantiomer, which is not contained in esketamine, are longer lasting and stronger.

Another problem is absorption, which can be inconsistent with a nasal spray. It may differ, for example, depending on the ambient humidity or whether the patient has recently had a cold. In addition, the spray is far more expensive than the ketamine injection, said Dr. Passie. Patients must also use the nasal spray under supervision at a medical practice (as with the intravenous application) and must receive follow-up care there. It therefore offers no advantage over the ketamine injection.

According to the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare, no additional benefit has been proven for esketamine over standard therapies for adults who have experienced a moderate to severe depressive episode when used as short-term treatment for the rapid reduction of depressive symptoms in a psychiatric emergency. The German Medical Association agreed with this evaluation in October 2021.

In the United Kingdom, the medication was never approved, owing to the fact that it was too expensive and that no studies comparing it with psychotherapy were available.
 

Add-on psilocybin?

While ketamine is only suitable for acute intervention, owing to the short duration of effect, the effects of psilocybin can last for weeks or even months following administration, and this has been seen in more than just a few patients. What was experienced under the influence of psilocybin can also be subsequently processed and used in psychotherapy.

The acute effect of psilocybin begins after approximately 40 minutes and lasts for 4-6 hours. The antidepressant effect, if it occurs at all, is of immediate onset. Unlike ketamine/esketamine, psilocybin hardly has any physical side effects.

The neurologic mechanism of action has been investigated recently using fMRI and PET techniques. According to the investigations, the substance causes individual networks of activity in the patient’s brain to interconnect more strongly, said Dr. Passie. The thalamus, the filter station for sensory information, as well as the limbic and paralimbic structures, which generate emotions, and the cortex are all activated more strongly.
 

Two therapeutic settings

Psilocybin, at least in the context of studies, is used in two settings: psycholytic therapy and psychedelic therapy. Both settings originated in the 1950s and were also used with LSD as the active substance.

Psycholytic therapy with psilocybin entails multiple administrations at low doses (for example, 10-18 mg), incorporated into a longer, mostly psychodynamic therapy of around 50-100 hours (often on an inpatient basis at the beginning). It results in what is described as an extended encounter with oneself. The focus is on psychodynamic experiences, such as memories and internal conflicts. In addition, novel experiences with oneself and self-recognition are important.

Psychedelic therapy generally entails one or two sessions with a high dose (for example, 25-35 mg psilocybin). The preparation and follow-up are limited to a few sessions. These methods refer to so-called transpersonal psychology, which addresses extraordinary states of consciousness in line with religious experiences. It often leads to an intense self-confrontation as well as to new evaluations of self and world. The central element to this therapy is the experience of a mystical ego loss and the concomitant feeling of connectedness, which should help to expand one’s perspective.
 

Euphoria and disillusionment

The first promising studies with a few patients suffering from depression were followed by others in which the euphoria was allowed to fade away somewhat. In the first direct comparison in a methodically high-grade double-blind study, psilocybin was inferior to the SSRI antidepressant escitalopram.

“There is a great variation in response from person to person,” said Dr. Passie. “The better the study is methodically controlled, the worse the results,” he hypothesized.

“Since the method is up to 50 times more expensive in practice, compared to SSRI therapy over 6-12 weeks, the question clearly must be asked as to whether it really has any great future.”
 

Outlook for psilocybin

Nevertheless, Dr. Passie still sees potential in psilocybin. He considers an approach in which psilocybin therapy is more firmly incorporated into psychotherapy, with between four and 10 therapy sessions before and after administration of a lower therapeutic dose of the substance, to be more promising.

“With this kind of intensive preparation and follow-up, as well as the repeated psilocybin sessions, the patient can benefit much more than is possible with one or two high-dose sessions,” said Dr. Passie, who also is chair of the International Society for Substance-Assisted Psychotherapy. “The constant ‘in-depth work on the ego’ required for drastic therapeutic changes can be more effective and lead to permanent improvements. I have no doubt about this.”

In Dr. Passie’s opinion, the best approach would involve a dignified inpatient setting with a longer period of follow-up care and consistent posttreatment care, including group therapy. The shape of future psilocybin therapy depends on whether the rather abrupt change seen with high-dose psychedelic therapy is permanent. The answer to this question will be decisive for the method and manner of its future clinical use.

Because of the somewhat negative study results, however, the initial investors are pulling out. Dr. Passie is therefore skeptical about whether the necessary larger studies will take place and whether psilocybin will make it onto the market.

In Switzerland, which is not subject to EU restrictions, more than 30 physicians have been authorized to use psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA in psychotherapy sessions. Still, in some respects this is a special case that cannot be transferred easily to other countries, said Dr. Passie.
 

Possible psilocybin improvement?

Various chemical derivatives of psychoactive substances have been researched, including a psilocybin variant with the label CYB003. With CYB003, the length of the acute psychedelic experience is reduced from around 6 hours (such as with psilocybin) to 1 hour. The plasma concentration of the substance is less variable between different patients. It is assumed that its effects will also differ less from person to person.

In July, researchers began a study of the use of CYB003 in the treatment of major depression. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 40 patients, multiple doses of the substance will be administered.

When asked, Dr. Passie was rather skeptical about the study. He considers the approaches with psilocybin derivatives to be the consequences of a “gold-rush atmosphere” and expects there will be no real additional benefit, especially not a reduction in the period of action.

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

In the United States, uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, behind breast, lung/bronchus, and colorectal cancer. There are expected to be almost 66,000 new cases of uterine cancer in 2022.¹ The majority of uterine cancers are endometrioid in histology and tend to be low grade, diagnosed at an early stage, and have a good prognosis. While our molecular understanding of endometrial cancers (EC) has changed significantly in recent years, low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas have historically been described as type 1 ECs. Type 1 ECs are typically caused by excess estrogen exposure (often unopposed or lacking progesterone protection) and are preceded by endometrial hyperplasia. Excess estrogen can come from exogenous sources (such as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy or tamoxifen, a commonly used treatment in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer that acts as an estrogen agonist in the endometrium in postmenopausal patients) or endogenous ones (such as obesity).

Peripheral adipose tissue converts androgens into estrogens; paired with the decreased levels of sex hormone–binding globulin seen in obesity, there is more unbound or free serum estrogen (specifically estradiol) in obese women. Estrogen acts on the endometrium to cause proliferation and, if unopposed or imbalanced in relation to progesterone exposure, can ultimately lead to hyperplasia and malignancy.

Footnote: vaginal estrogen therapy

There are no randomized trials assessing the safety of vaginal estrogen preparations or their effect on oncologic outcomes in EC survivors. Observational data from the Women’s Health Initiative showed no increased risk of endometrial cancer in patients who used vaginal estrogen with an intact uterus.⁴ A recently published retrospective study among 244 gynecologic cancer survivors found low rates of disease recurrence and adverse outcomes among women who used vaginal estrogen for genitourinary symptoms.⁵ Among EC survivors, the incidence of recurrence was 2.4% for patients with stage I/II disease and 4.3% for stage III/IV disease, with a median follow-up of 80.2 months. While there appears to be some systemic absorption with vaginal estrogen use, this can be quite challenging to measure because of the current sensitivity of serum estradiol and estrone assays. Given the significantly lower serum levels with vaginal estrogen preparations compared with ERT, vaginal estrogen use appears to be safe in EC survivors.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Cancer Stat Facts: Uterine Cancer. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Accessed 12 Aug. 2022. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html.

2. Barakat RR et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

3. Shim SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(9):1628-37.

4. Crandall CJ et al. Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):11-20.

5. Chambers LM et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Apr;30(4):515-24.

In the United States, uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, behind breast, lung/bronchus, and colorectal cancer. There are expected to be almost 66,000 new cases of uterine cancer in 2022.¹ The majority of uterine cancers are endometrioid in histology and tend to be low grade, diagnosed at an early stage, and have a good prognosis. While our molecular understanding of endometrial cancers (EC) has changed significantly in recent years, low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas have historically been described as type 1 ECs. Type 1 ECs are typically caused by excess estrogen exposure (often unopposed or lacking progesterone protection) and are preceded by endometrial hyperplasia. Excess estrogen can come from exogenous sources (such as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy or tamoxifen, a commonly used treatment in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer that acts as an estrogen agonist in the endometrium in postmenopausal patients) or endogenous ones (such as obesity).

Peripheral adipose tissue converts androgens into estrogens; paired with the decreased levels of sex hormone–binding globulin seen in obesity, there is more unbound or free serum estrogen (specifically estradiol) in obese women. Estrogen acts on the endometrium to cause proliferation and, if unopposed or imbalanced in relation to progesterone exposure, can ultimately lead to hyperplasia and malignancy.

Footnote: vaginal estrogen therapy

There are no randomized trials assessing the safety of vaginal estrogen preparations or their effect on oncologic outcomes in EC survivors. Observational data from the Women’s Health Initiative showed no increased risk of endometrial cancer in patients who used vaginal estrogen with an intact uterus.⁴ A recently published retrospective study among 244 gynecologic cancer survivors found low rates of disease recurrence and adverse outcomes among women who used vaginal estrogen for genitourinary symptoms.⁵ Among EC survivors, the incidence of recurrence was 2.4% for patients with stage I/II disease and 4.3% for stage III/IV disease, with a median follow-up of 80.2 months. While there appears to be some systemic absorption with vaginal estrogen use, this can be quite challenging to measure because of the current sensitivity of serum estradiol and estrone assays. Given the significantly lower serum levels with vaginal estrogen preparations compared with ERT, vaginal estrogen use appears to be safe in EC survivors.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Cancer Stat Facts: Uterine Cancer. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Accessed 12 Aug. 2022. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html.

2. Barakat RR et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

3. Shim SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(9):1628-37.

4. Crandall CJ et al. Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):11-20.

5. Chambers LM et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Apr;30(4):515-24.

In the United States, uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, behind breast, lung/bronchus, and colorectal cancer. There are expected to be almost 66,000 new cases of uterine cancer in 2022.¹ The majority of uterine cancers are endometrioid in histology and tend to be low grade, diagnosed at an early stage, and have a good prognosis. While our molecular understanding of endometrial cancers (EC) has changed significantly in recent years, low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas have historically been described as type 1 ECs. Type 1 ECs are typically caused by excess estrogen exposure (often unopposed or lacking progesterone protection) and are preceded by endometrial hyperplasia. Excess estrogen can come from exogenous sources (such as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy or tamoxifen, a commonly used treatment in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer that acts as an estrogen agonist in the endometrium in postmenopausal patients) or endogenous ones (such as obesity).

Peripheral adipose tissue converts androgens into estrogens; paired with the decreased levels of sex hormone–binding globulin seen in obesity, there is more unbound or free serum estrogen (specifically estradiol) in obese women. Estrogen acts on the endometrium to cause proliferation and, if unopposed or imbalanced in relation to progesterone exposure, can ultimately lead to hyperplasia and malignancy.

Footnote: vaginal estrogen therapy

There are no randomized trials assessing the safety of vaginal estrogen preparations or their effect on oncologic outcomes in EC survivors. Observational data from the Women’s Health Initiative showed no increased risk of endometrial cancer in patients who used vaginal estrogen with an intact uterus.⁴ A recently published retrospective study among 244 gynecologic cancer survivors found low rates of disease recurrence and adverse outcomes among women who used vaginal estrogen for genitourinary symptoms.⁵ Among EC survivors, the incidence of recurrence was 2.4% for patients with stage I/II disease and 4.3% for stage III/IV disease, with a median follow-up of 80.2 months. While there appears to be some systemic absorption with vaginal estrogen use, this can be quite challenging to measure because of the current sensitivity of serum estradiol and estrone assays. Given the significantly lower serum levels with vaginal estrogen preparations compared with ERT, vaginal estrogen use appears to be safe in EC survivors.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Cancer Stat Facts: Uterine Cancer. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Accessed 12 Aug. 2022. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html.

2. Barakat RR et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

3. Shim SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(9):1628-37.

4. Crandall CJ et al. Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):11-20.

5. Chambers LM et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Apr;30(4):515-24.

2021 bought welcome relief to oncologists, whose incomes generally rose as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and patients ventured out again, concludes the latest Medscape Oncologist Wealth & Debt Report 2022.

Comparing the findings with those in the larger Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022, which surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties, the findings for oncologists show how they compare with those who chose other paths in medicine.

Oncologists’ income rose, on average, by 2% in the past year and now stands at an average of $411,000 annually, up from $403,000 in the 2021 report.

This puts oncologists in the top third of specialties, with plastic surgeons again in the top slot (with average income of $576,000 in 2022).

One-fifth (20%) of oncologists surveyed reported a family worth of more than $5 million, which represents substantial family wealth, the report comments.

However, 22% of oncologists reported that their family net worth was less than $500,000, and another 10% estimated that it to fall between $500,000 and $1 million.

For comparison, the average U.S. family net worth is about $749,000, according to data from the Federal Reserve.
 

Most live ‘within their means’

Most oncologists (94%) and also most (94%) of all of the physicians surveyed said that they live within or below their means.

How does one do this? Just paying off credit cards each month and contributing enough to a 401(k) account to receive an employer match does not meet this standard, said Joel Greenwald MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians. To live within or below your means, you also need to be saving at least 20% toward retirement, pay down student loans, contribute to your kids’ college savings, and set aside rainy day cash, he explained.

When physicians were asked about their favorite cost-cutting tactics, replies included bringing lunch to work, keeping a car for 15 years, and carrying out their own household maintenance and repairs. One doctor described a “24-hour rule” when it comes to shopping: “Revisit the desired purchase after 24 hours to see if it’s still desired.”

But how well do these tactics go down with ‘the other half’ and the rest of the household? Two-thirds (66%) of oncologists, and a similar proportion of all physicians, said that they argue with their significant other about spending. This appears to be high in comparison with the finding from a recent survey that across the United States, about one in four couples (25%) argue about money at least once a month.

Regarding spending, the top expense among oncologists was for childcare (16%), private tuition for offspring (14%), mortgage on a second home (14%), college tuition for offspring (14%), and a car lease (12%).

Around 17% of oncologists reported that they are still paying off their own college or medical school loans. For this statistic, they are about in the middle of all specialties.

The report notes that freeing oneself from medical school debt is very costly. Physicians in the United States pay an average of $356,000-$440,000, about half of which is interest.
 

Little change over 2021

The COVID pandemic had much less of an impact on physicians than it had on the general population when it comes to keeping up with payments, and most physicians were not affected. Only 3% of oncologists said they fell behind with payments for mortgage; 6% fell behind with payments for other bills.

In comparison, nearly half (46%) of Americans missed one or more payments of rent or mortgage because of COVID, according to a 2021 industry survey.

Over the past year, most oncologists (70%) did not change their spending habits, and only 11% cut expenses by deferring or refinancing loans. Also, most oncologists (75%) avoided major financial loses. Only 8% reported financial losses because of problems at their medical practice.

However, a slightly higher percentage of oncologists reported a stock or company investment that had turned sour in 2022 (37%) in comparison with 2021 (28%).

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

2021 bought welcome relief to oncologists, whose incomes generally rose as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and patients ventured out again, concludes the latest Medscape Oncologist Wealth & Debt Report 2022.

Comparing the findings with those in the larger Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022, which surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties, the findings for oncologists show how they compare with those who chose other paths in medicine.

Oncologists’ income rose, on average, by 2% in the past year and now stands at an average of $411,000 annually, up from $403,000 in the 2021 report.

This puts oncologists in the top third of specialties, with plastic surgeons again in the top slot (with average income of $576,000 in 2022).

One-fifth (20%) of oncologists surveyed reported a family worth of more than $5 million, which represents substantial family wealth, the report comments.

However, 22% of oncologists reported that their family net worth was less than $500,000, and another 10% estimated that it to fall between $500,000 and $1 million.

For comparison, the average U.S. family net worth is about $749,000, according to data from the Federal Reserve.
 

Most live ‘within their means’

Most oncologists (94%) and also most (94%) of all of the physicians surveyed said that they live within or below their means.

How does one do this? Just paying off credit cards each month and contributing enough to a 401(k) account to receive an employer match does not meet this standard, said Joel Greenwald MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians. To live within or below your means, you also need to be saving at least 20% toward retirement, pay down student loans, contribute to your kids’ college savings, and set aside rainy day cash, he explained.

When physicians were asked about their favorite cost-cutting tactics, replies included bringing lunch to work, keeping a car for 15 years, and carrying out their own household maintenance and repairs. One doctor described a “24-hour rule” when it comes to shopping: “Revisit the desired purchase after 24 hours to see if it’s still desired.”

But how well do these tactics go down with ‘the other half’ and the rest of the household? Two-thirds (66%) of oncologists, and a similar proportion of all physicians, said that they argue with their significant other about spending. This appears to be high in comparison with the finding from a recent survey that across the United States, about one in four couples (25%) argue about money at least once a month.

Regarding spending, the top expense among oncologists was for childcare (16%), private tuition for offspring (14%), mortgage on a second home (14%), college tuition for offspring (14%), and a car lease (12%).

Around 17% of oncologists reported that they are still paying off their own college or medical school loans. For this statistic, they are about in the middle of all specialties.

The report notes that freeing oneself from medical school debt is very costly. Physicians in the United States pay an average of $356,000-$440,000, about half of which is interest.
 

Little change over 2021

The COVID pandemic had much less of an impact on physicians than it had on the general population when it comes to keeping up with payments, and most physicians were not affected. Only 3% of oncologists said they fell behind with payments for mortgage; 6% fell behind with payments for other bills.

In comparison, nearly half (46%) of Americans missed one or more payments of rent or mortgage because of COVID, according to a 2021 industry survey.

Over the past year, most oncologists (70%) did not change their spending habits, and only 11% cut expenses by deferring or refinancing loans. Also, most oncologists (75%) avoided major financial loses. Only 8% reported financial losses because of problems at their medical practice.

However, a slightly higher percentage of oncologists reported a stock or company investment that had turned sour in 2022 (37%) in comparison with 2021 (28%).

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

2021 bought welcome relief to oncologists, whose incomes generally rose as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and patients ventured out again, concludes the latest Medscape Oncologist Wealth & Debt Report 2022.

Comparing the findings with those in the larger Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022, which surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties, the findings for oncologists show how they compare with those who chose other paths in medicine.

Oncologists’ income rose, on average, by 2% in the past year and now stands at an average of $411,000 annually, up from $403,000 in the 2021 report.

This puts oncologists in the top third of specialties, with plastic surgeons again in the top slot (with average income of $576,000 in 2022).

One-fifth (20%) of oncologists surveyed reported a family worth of more than $5 million, which represents substantial family wealth, the report comments.

However, 22% of oncologists reported that their family net worth was less than $500,000, and another 10% estimated that it to fall between $500,000 and $1 million.

For comparison, the average U.S. family net worth is about $749,000, according to data from the Federal Reserve.
 

Most live ‘within their means’

Most oncologists (94%) and also most (94%) of all of the physicians surveyed said that they live within or below their means.

How does one do this? Just paying off credit cards each month and contributing enough to a 401(k) account to receive an employer match does not meet this standard, said Joel Greenwald MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians. To live within or below your means, you also need to be saving at least 20% toward retirement, pay down student loans, contribute to your kids’ college savings, and set aside rainy day cash, he explained.

When physicians were asked about their favorite cost-cutting tactics, replies included bringing lunch to work, keeping a car for 15 years, and carrying out their own household maintenance and repairs. One doctor described a “24-hour rule” when it comes to shopping: “Revisit the desired purchase after 24 hours to see if it’s still desired.”

But how well do these tactics go down with ‘the other half’ and the rest of the household? Two-thirds (66%) of oncologists, and a similar proportion of all physicians, said that they argue with their significant other about spending. This appears to be high in comparison with the finding from a recent survey that across the United States, about one in four couples (25%) argue about money at least once a month.

Regarding spending, the top expense among oncologists was for childcare (16%), private tuition for offspring (14%), mortgage on a second home (14%), college tuition for offspring (14%), and a car lease (12%).

Around 17% of oncologists reported that they are still paying off their own college or medical school loans. For this statistic, they are about in the middle of all specialties.

The report notes that freeing oneself from medical school debt is very costly. Physicians in the United States pay an average of $356,000-$440,000, about half of which is interest.
 

Little change over 2021

The COVID pandemic had much less of an impact on physicians than it had on the general population when it comes to keeping up with payments, and most physicians were not affected. Only 3% of oncologists said they fell behind with payments for mortgage; 6% fell behind with payments for other bills.

In comparison, nearly half (46%) of Americans missed one or more payments of rent or mortgage because of COVID, according to a 2021 industry survey.

Over the past year, most oncologists (70%) did not change their spending habits, and only 11% cut expenses by deferring or refinancing loans. Also, most oncologists (75%) avoided major financial loses. Only 8% reported financial losses because of problems at their medical practice.

However, a slightly higher percentage of oncologists reported a stock or company investment that had turned sour in 2022 (37%) in comparison with 2021 (28%).

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

The American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS) have created a new registry that now accepts reports from health care providers worldwide about monkeypox cases and monkeypox vaccine reactions.

Patient data such as names and dates of birth will not be collected.

“As with our joint COVID-19 registry, we will be doing real-time data analysis during the outbreak,” dermatologist Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the AAD’s monkeypox task force, said in an interview. “We will to try to feed information back to our front line in terms of clinical characteristics of cases, morphology, and any unexpected findings.”

NIAID

According to Dr. Freeman, the principal investigator for the COVID-19 registry, this registry has allowed the quick gathering of information about dermatologic findings of COVID-19 from over 53 countries. “We have published over 15 papers, and we share data with outside investigators wishing to do their own analysis of registry-related data,” she said. “Our most-cited paper on COVID vaccine skin reactions has been cited almost 500 times since 2021. It has been used to educate the public on vaccine side effects and to combat vaccine hesitancy.”

The monkeypox registry “doesn’t belong to any one group or person,” Dr. Freeman said. “The idea with rapid data analysis is to be able to give back to the dermatologic community what is hard for us to see with any single case: Patterns and new findings that can be helpful to share with dermatologists and other physicians worldwide, all working together to stop an outbreak.”

The American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS) have created a new registry that now accepts reports from health care providers worldwide about monkeypox cases and monkeypox vaccine reactions.

Patient data such as names and dates of birth will not be collected.

“As with our joint COVID-19 registry, we will be doing real-time data analysis during the outbreak,” dermatologist Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the AAD’s monkeypox task force, said in an interview. “We will to try to feed information back to our front line in terms of clinical characteristics of cases, morphology, and any unexpected findings.”

NIAID

According to Dr. Freeman, the principal investigator for the COVID-19 registry, this registry has allowed the quick gathering of information about dermatologic findings of COVID-19 from over 53 countries. “We have published over 15 papers, and we share data with outside investigators wishing to do their own analysis of registry-related data,” she said. “Our most-cited paper on COVID vaccine skin reactions has been cited almost 500 times since 2021. It has been used to educate the public on vaccine side effects and to combat vaccine hesitancy.”

The monkeypox registry “doesn’t belong to any one group or person,” Dr. Freeman said. “The idea with rapid data analysis is to be able to give back to the dermatologic community what is hard for us to see with any single case: Patterns and new findings that can be helpful to share with dermatologists and other physicians worldwide, all working together to stop an outbreak.”

The American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS) have created a new registry that now accepts reports from health care providers worldwide about monkeypox cases and monkeypox vaccine reactions.

Patient data such as names and dates of birth will not be collected.

“As with our joint COVID-19 registry, we will be doing real-time data analysis during the outbreak,” dermatologist Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the AAD’s monkeypox task force, said in an interview. “We will to try to feed information back to our front line in terms of clinical characteristics of cases, morphology, and any unexpected findings.”

NIAID

According to Dr. Freeman, the principal investigator for the COVID-19 registry, this registry has allowed the quick gathering of information about dermatologic findings of COVID-19 from over 53 countries. “We have published over 15 papers, and we share data with outside investigators wishing to do their own analysis of registry-related data,” she said. “Our most-cited paper on COVID vaccine skin reactions has been cited almost 500 times since 2021. It has been used to educate the public on vaccine side effects and to combat vaccine hesitancy.”

The monkeypox registry “doesn’t belong to any one group or person,” Dr. Freeman said. “The idea with rapid data analysis is to be able to give back to the dermatologic community what is hard for us to see with any single case: Patterns and new findings that can be helpful to share with dermatologists and other physicians worldwide, all working together to stop an outbreak.”

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The relationship between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) is U-shaped, with the risk highest in those who are underweight or severely obese and lowest in patients defined simply as obese, a registry analysis suggests. It also showed a similar relationship between BMI and risk for new or worsening heart failure (HF).

Mortality bottomed out at a BMI of about 30-35 kg/m², which suggests that mild obesity was protective, compared even with “normal-weight” or “overweight” BMI. Still, mortality went up sharply from there with rising BMI.

But higher BMI, a surrogate for obesity, apparently didn’t worsen outcomes by itself. The risk for death from any cause at higher obesity levels was found to depend a lot on related risk factors and comorbidities when the analysis controlled for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.

The findings suggest an inverse relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in AFib only for patients with BMI less than about 30. They therefore argue against any “obesity paradox” in AFib that posits consistently better survival with increasing levels of obesity, say researchers, based on their analysis of patients with new-onset AFib in the GARFIELD-AF registry.

“It’s common practice now for clinicians to discuss weight within a clinic setting when they’re talking to their AFib patients,” observed Christian Fielder Camm, BM, BCh, University of Oxford (England), and Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, England. So studies suggesting an inverse association between BMI and AFib-related risk can be a concern.

Such studies “seem to suggest that once you’ve got AFib, maintaining a high or very high BMI may in some way be protective – which is contrary to what would seem to make sense and certainly contrary to what our results have shown,” Dr. Camm told this news organization.

“I think that having further evidence now to suggest, actually, that greater BMI is associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure helps reframe that discussion at the physician-patient interaction level more clearly, and ensures that we’re able to talk to our patients appropriately about risks associated with BMI and atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Camm, who is lead author on the analysis published in Open Heart.

“Obesity is a cause of most cardiovascular diseases, but [these] data would support that being overweight or having mild obesity does not increase the risk,” observed Carl J. Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, La., and the Ochsner Clinical School at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“At a BMI of 40, it’s very important for them to lose weight for their long-term prognosis,” Dr. Lavie noted, but “at a BMI of 30, the important thing would be to prevent further weight gain. And if they could keep their BMI of 30, they should have a good prognosis. Their prognosis would be particularly good if they didn’t gain weight and put themselves in a more extreme obesity class that is associated with worse risk.”

The current analysis, Dr. Lavie said, “is way better than the AFFIRM study,” which yielded an obesity-paradox report on its patients with AFib about a dozen years ago. “It’s got more data, more numbers, more statistical power,” and breaks BMI into more categories.

That previous analysis based on the influential AFFIRM randomized trial separated its 4,060 patients with AFib into normal (BMI, 18.5-25), overweight (BMI, 25-30), and obese (BMI, > 30) categories, per the convention at the time. It concluded that “obese patients with atrial fibrillation appear to have better long-term outcomes than nonobese patients.”
 

Bleeding risk on oral anticoagulants

Also noteworthy in the current analysis, variation in BMI didn’t seem to affect mortality or risk for major bleeding or nonhemorrhagic stroke according to choice of oral anticoagulant – whether a new oral anticoagulant (NOAC) or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA).

“We saw that even in the obese and extremely obese group, all-cause mortality was lower in the group taking NOACs, compared with taking warfarin,” Dr. Camm observed, “which goes against the idea that we would need any kind of dose adjustments for increased BMI.”

Indeed, the report notes, use of NOACs, compared with VKA, was associated with a 23% drop in risk for death among patients who were either normal weight or overweight and also in those who were obese or extremely obese.

Those findings “are basically saying that the NOACs look better than warfarin regardless of weight,” agreed Dr. Lavie. “The problem is that the study is not very powered.”

Whereas the benefits of NOACs, compared to VKA, seem similar for patients with a BMI of 30 or 34, compared with a BMI of 23, for example, “none of the studies has many people with 50 BMI.” Many clinicians “feel uncomfortable giving the same dose of NOAC to somebody who has a 60 BMI,” he said. At least with warfarin, “you can check the INR [international normalized ratio].”

The current analysis included 40,482 patients with recently diagnosed AFib and at least one other stroke risk factor from among the registry’s more than 50,000 patients from 35 countries, enrolled from 2010 to 2016. They were followed for 2 years.

The 703 patients with BMI under 18.5 at AFib diagnosis were classified per World Health Organization definitions as underweight; the 13,095 with BMI 18.5-25 as normal weight; the 15,043 with BMI 25-30 as overweight; the 7,560 with BMI 30-35 as obese; and the 4,081 with BMI above 35 as extremely obese. Their ages averaged 71 years, and 55.6% were men.
 

BMI effects on different outcomes

Relationships between BMI and all-cause mortality and between BMI and new or worsening HF emerged as U-shaped, the risk climbing with both increasing and decreasing BMI. The nadir BMI for risk was about 30 in the case of mortality and about 25 for new or worsening HF.

The all-cause mortality risk rose by 32% for every 5 BMI points lower than a BMI of 30, and by 16% for every 5 BMI points higher than 30, in a partially adjusted analysis. The risk for new or worsening HF rose significantly with increasing but not decreasing BMI, and the reverse was observed for the endpoint of major bleeding.

The effect of BMI on all-cause mortality was “substantially attenuated” when the analysis was further adjusted with “likely mediators of any association between BMI and outcomes,” including hypertension, diabetes, HF, cerebrovascular events, and history of bleeding, Dr. Camm said.

That blunted BMI-mortality relationship, he said, “suggests that a lot of the effect is mediated through relatively traditional risk factors like hypertension and diabetes.”

The 2010 AFFIRM analysis by BMI, Dr. Lavie noted, “didn’t even look at the underweight; they actually threw them out.” Yet, such patients with AFib, who tend to be extremely frail or have chronic diseases or conditions other than the arrhythmia, are common. A take-home of the current study is that “the underweight with atrial fibrillation have a really bad prognosis.”

That message isn’t heard as much, he observed, “but is as important as saying that BMI 30 has the best prognosis. The worst prognosis is with the underweight or the really extreme obese.”

Dr. Camm discloses research funding from the British Heart Foundation. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Lavie has previously disclosed serving as a speaker and consultant for PAI Health and DSM Nutritional Products and is the author of “The Obesity Paradox: When Thinner Means Sicker and Heavier Means Healthier” (Avery, 2014).

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

The relationship between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) is U-shaped, with the risk highest in those who are underweight or severely obese and lowest in patients defined simply as obese, a registry analysis suggests. It also showed a similar relationship between BMI and risk for new or worsening heart failure (HF).

Mortality bottomed out at a BMI of about 30-35 kg/m², which suggests that mild obesity was protective, compared even with “normal-weight” or “overweight” BMI. Still, mortality went up sharply from there with rising BMI.

But higher BMI, a surrogate for obesity, apparently didn’t worsen outcomes by itself. The risk for death from any cause at higher obesity levels was found to depend a lot on related risk factors and comorbidities when the analysis controlled for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.

The findings suggest an inverse relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in AFib only for patients with BMI less than about 30. They therefore argue against any “obesity paradox” in AFib that posits consistently better survival with increasing levels of obesity, say researchers, based on their analysis of patients with new-onset AFib in the GARFIELD-AF registry.

“It’s common practice now for clinicians to discuss weight within a clinic setting when they’re talking to their AFib patients,” observed Christian Fielder Camm, BM, BCh, University of Oxford (England), and Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, England. So studies suggesting an inverse association between BMI and AFib-related risk can be a concern.

Such studies “seem to suggest that once you’ve got AFib, maintaining a high or very high BMI may in some way be protective – which is contrary to what would seem to make sense and certainly contrary to what our results have shown,” Dr. Camm told this news organization.

“I think that having further evidence now to suggest, actually, that greater BMI is associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure helps reframe that discussion at the physician-patient interaction level more clearly, and ensures that we’re able to talk to our patients appropriately about risks associated with BMI and atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Camm, who is lead author on the analysis published in Open Heart.

“Obesity is a cause of most cardiovascular diseases, but [these] data would support that being overweight or having mild obesity does not increase the risk,” observed Carl J. Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, La., and the Ochsner Clinical School at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“At a BMI of 40, it’s very important for them to lose weight for their long-term prognosis,” Dr. Lavie noted, but “at a BMI of 30, the important thing would be to prevent further weight gain. And if they could keep their BMI of 30, they should have a good prognosis. Their prognosis would be particularly good if they didn’t gain weight and put themselves in a more extreme obesity class that is associated with worse risk.”

The current analysis, Dr. Lavie said, “is way better than the AFFIRM study,” which yielded an obesity-paradox report on its patients with AFib about a dozen years ago. “It’s got more data, more numbers, more statistical power,” and breaks BMI into more categories.

That previous analysis based on the influential AFFIRM randomized trial separated its 4,060 patients with AFib into normal (BMI, 18.5-25), overweight (BMI, 25-30), and obese (BMI, > 30) categories, per the convention at the time. It concluded that “obese patients with atrial fibrillation appear to have better long-term outcomes than nonobese patients.”
 

Bleeding risk on oral anticoagulants

Also noteworthy in the current analysis, variation in BMI didn’t seem to affect mortality or risk for major bleeding or nonhemorrhagic stroke according to choice of oral anticoagulant – whether a new oral anticoagulant (NOAC) or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA).

“We saw that even in the obese and extremely obese group, all-cause mortality was lower in the group taking NOACs, compared with taking warfarin,” Dr. Camm observed, “which goes against the idea that we would need any kind of dose adjustments for increased BMI.”

Indeed, the report notes, use of NOACs, compared with VKA, was associated with a 23% drop in risk for death among patients who were either normal weight or overweight and also in those who were obese or extremely obese.

Those findings “are basically saying that the NOACs look better than warfarin regardless of weight,” agreed Dr. Lavie. “The problem is that the study is not very powered.”

Whereas the benefits of NOACs, compared to VKA, seem similar for patients with a BMI of 30 or 34, compared with a BMI of 23, for example, “none of the studies has many people with 50 BMI.” Many clinicians “feel uncomfortable giving the same dose of NOAC to somebody who has a 60 BMI,” he said. At least with warfarin, “you can check the INR [international normalized ratio].”

The current analysis included 40,482 patients with recently diagnosed AFib and at least one other stroke risk factor from among the registry’s more than 50,000 patients from 35 countries, enrolled from 2010 to 2016. They were followed for 2 years.

The 703 patients with BMI under 18.5 at AFib diagnosis were classified per World Health Organization definitions as underweight; the 13,095 with BMI 18.5-25 as normal weight; the 15,043 with BMI 25-30 as overweight; the 7,560 with BMI 30-35 as obese; and the 4,081 with BMI above 35 as extremely obese. Their ages averaged 71 years, and 55.6% were men.
 

BMI effects on different outcomes

Relationships between BMI and all-cause mortality and between BMI and new or worsening HF emerged as U-shaped, the risk climbing with both increasing and decreasing BMI. The nadir BMI for risk was about 30 in the case of mortality and about 25 for new or worsening HF.

The all-cause mortality risk rose by 32% for every 5 BMI points lower than a BMI of 30, and by 16% for every 5 BMI points higher than 30, in a partially adjusted analysis. The risk for new or worsening HF rose significantly with increasing but not decreasing BMI, and the reverse was observed for the endpoint of major bleeding.

The effect of BMI on all-cause mortality was “substantially attenuated” when the analysis was further adjusted with “likely mediators of any association between BMI and outcomes,” including hypertension, diabetes, HF, cerebrovascular events, and history of bleeding, Dr. Camm said.

That blunted BMI-mortality relationship, he said, “suggests that a lot of the effect is mediated through relatively traditional risk factors like hypertension and diabetes.”

The 2010 AFFIRM analysis by BMI, Dr. Lavie noted, “didn’t even look at the underweight; they actually threw them out.” Yet, such patients with AFib, who tend to be extremely frail or have chronic diseases or conditions other than the arrhythmia, are common. A take-home of the current study is that “the underweight with atrial fibrillation have a really bad prognosis.”

That message isn’t heard as much, he observed, “but is as important as saying that BMI 30 has the best prognosis. The worst prognosis is with the underweight or the really extreme obese.”

Dr. Camm discloses research funding from the British Heart Foundation. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Lavie has previously disclosed serving as a speaker and consultant for PAI Health and DSM Nutritional Products and is the author of “The Obesity Paradox: When Thinner Means Sicker and Heavier Means Healthier” (Avery, 2014).

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

The relationship between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) is U-shaped, with the risk highest in those who are underweight or severely obese and lowest in patients defined simply as obese, a registry analysis suggests. It also showed a similar relationship between BMI and risk for new or worsening heart failure (HF).

Mortality bottomed out at a BMI of about 30-35 kg/m², which suggests that mild obesity was protective, compared even with “normal-weight” or “overweight” BMI. Still, mortality went up sharply from there with rising BMI.

But higher BMI, a surrogate for obesity, apparently didn’t worsen outcomes by itself. The risk for death from any cause at higher obesity levels was found to depend a lot on related risk factors and comorbidities when the analysis controlled for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.

The findings suggest an inverse relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in AFib only for patients with BMI less than about 30. They therefore argue against any “obesity paradox” in AFib that posits consistently better survival with increasing levels of obesity, say researchers, based on their analysis of patients with new-onset AFib in the GARFIELD-AF registry.

“It’s common practice now for clinicians to discuss weight within a clinic setting when they’re talking to their AFib patients,” observed Christian Fielder Camm, BM, BCh, University of Oxford (England), and Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, England. So studies suggesting an inverse association between BMI and AFib-related risk can be a concern.

Such studies “seem to suggest that once you’ve got AFib, maintaining a high or very high BMI may in some way be protective – which is contrary to what would seem to make sense and certainly contrary to what our results have shown,” Dr. Camm told this news organization.

“I think that having further evidence now to suggest, actually, that greater BMI is associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure helps reframe that discussion at the physician-patient interaction level more clearly, and ensures that we’re able to talk to our patients appropriately about risks associated with BMI and atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Camm, who is lead author on the analysis published in Open Heart.

“Obesity is a cause of most cardiovascular diseases, but [these] data would support that being overweight or having mild obesity does not increase the risk,” observed Carl J. Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, La., and the Ochsner Clinical School at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“At a BMI of 40, it’s very important for them to lose weight for their long-term prognosis,” Dr. Lavie noted, but “at a BMI of 30, the important thing would be to prevent further weight gain. And if they could keep their BMI of 30, they should have a good prognosis. Their prognosis would be particularly good if they didn’t gain weight and put themselves in a more extreme obesity class that is associated with worse risk.”

The current analysis, Dr. Lavie said, “is way better than the AFFIRM study,” which yielded an obesity-paradox report on its patients with AFib about a dozen years ago. “It’s got more data, more numbers, more statistical power,” and breaks BMI into more categories.

That previous analysis based on the influential AFFIRM randomized trial separated its 4,060 patients with AFib into normal (BMI, 18.5-25), overweight (BMI, 25-30), and obese (BMI, > 30) categories, per the convention at the time. It concluded that “obese patients with atrial fibrillation appear to have better long-term outcomes than nonobese patients.”
 

Bleeding risk on oral anticoagulants

Also noteworthy in the current analysis, variation in BMI didn’t seem to affect mortality or risk for major bleeding or nonhemorrhagic stroke according to choice of oral anticoagulant – whether a new oral anticoagulant (NOAC) or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA).

“We saw that even in the obese and extremely obese group, all-cause mortality was lower in the group taking NOACs, compared with taking warfarin,” Dr. Camm observed, “which goes against the idea that we would need any kind of dose adjustments for increased BMI.”

Indeed, the report notes, use of NOACs, compared with VKA, was associated with a 23% drop in risk for death among patients who were either normal weight or overweight and also in those who were obese or extremely obese.

Those findings “are basically saying that the NOACs look better than warfarin regardless of weight,” agreed Dr. Lavie. “The problem is that the study is not very powered.”

Whereas the benefits of NOACs, compared to VKA, seem similar for patients with a BMI of 30 or 34, compared with a BMI of 23, for example, “none of the studies has many people with 50 BMI.” Many clinicians “feel uncomfortable giving the same dose of NOAC to somebody who has a 60 BMI,” he said. At least with warfarin, “you can check the INR [international normalized ratio].”

The current analysis included 40,482 patients with recently diagnosed AFib and at least one other stroke risk factor from among the registry’s more than 50,000 patients from 35 countries, enrolled from 2010 to 2016. They were followed for 2 years.

The 703 patients with BMI under 18.5 at AFib diagnosis were classified per World Health Organization definitions as underweight; the 13,095 with BMI 18.5-25 as normal weight; the 15,043 with BMI 25-30 as overweight; the 7,560 with BMI 30-35 as obese; and the 4,081 with BMI above 35 as extremely obese. Their ages averaged 71 years, and 55.6% were men.
 

BMI effects on different outcomes

Relationships between BMI and all-cause mortality and between BMI and new or worsening HF emerged as U-shaped, the risk climbing with both increasing and decreasing BMI. The nadir BMI for risk was about 30 in the case of mortality and about 25 for new or worsening HF.

The all-cause mortality risk rose by 32% for every 5 BMI points lower than a BMI of 30, and by 16% for every 5 BMI points higher than 30, in a partially adjusted analysis. The risk for new or worsening HF rose significantly with increasing but not decreasing BMI, and the reverse was observed for the endpoint of major bleeding.

The effect of BMI on all-cause mortality was “substantially attenuated” when the analysis was further adjusted with “likely mediators of any association between BMI and outcomes,” including hypertension, diabetes, HF, cerebrovascular events, and history of bleeding, Dr. Camm said.

That blunted BMI-mortality relationship, he said, “suggests that a lot of the effect is mediated through relatively traditional risk factors like hypertension and diabetes.”

The 2010 AFFIRM analysis by BMI, Dr. Lavie noted, “didn’t even look at the underweight; they actually threw them out.” Yet, such patients with AFib, who tend to be extremely frail or have chronic diseases or conditions other than the arrhythmia, are common. A take-home of the current study is that “the underweight with atrial fibrillation have a really bad prognosis.”

That message isn’t heard as much, he observed, “but is as important as saying that BMI 30 has the best prognosis. The worst prognosis is with the underweight or the really extreme obese.”

Dr. Camm discloses research funding from the British Heart Foundation. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Lavie has previously disclosed serving as a speaker and consultant for PAI Health and DSM Nutritional Products and is the author of “The Obesity Paradox: When Thinner Means Sicker and Heavier Means Healthier” (Avery, 2014).

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

The last 15 years have brought increased effort to screen for postpartum psychiatric illness. That’s exceedingly welcome given the morbidity and potential mortality associated with postpartum psychiatric disorders across the country.

From small community hospitals to major academic centers, screening for postpartum depression is part of the clinical fabric of routine obstetrical care. There is a growing appreciation for the complexity of perinatal psychiatric illness, particularly with respect to the commingling of both mood and anxiety disorders during the postpartum period. However, willingness to treat and appreciation of the urgency to treat with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions can vary. For women who suffer from postpartum depression and their families, there are real-world implications of both treating and failing to treat this illness, and there is an urgent need to really help these women “climb out of the darkness” that is and defines postpartum depression.

Less common but of great clinical importance is postpartum psychosis, which occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000-2,000 women based on estimates from several studies. As noted in previous columns, the presentation is a dramatic one, with the typical onset of psychotic symptoms in the first days to weeks post partum. The disorder typically has a mood component and is not an exacerbation of underlying chronic psychotic illness. While there have been few systematic treatment studies, the clinical consensus is treatment usually includes hospitalization to ensure the safety of both the patient and infant. Use of medications, including mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines may be appropriate when expeditious treatment is needed.

Appropriate treatment by informed clinical staff is essential, as untreated or incompletely treated postpartum psychosis with its attendant morbidity and potential mortality is a very real concern. As I speak with women across the country with histories of postpartum psychosis, I’m often told of the difficult exchanges that women and their partners have at EDs in various clinical settings where diagnosis was delayed, or treatment was incomplete because of staff without expertise in postpartum psychosis management.

Another dilemma that patients and clinicians face after acute treatment is treatment duration, which is derived from how we conceptualize the illness. Even for experts in the area, there is not a consensus on whether postpartum psychosis should be considered as bipolar disorder or whether it is a circumscribed diagnostic entity. This issue has been hotly debated for many years and is one of the reasons why the illness is not included in the DSM classification system.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, we are systematically studying a large cohort of women with histories of postpartum psychosis as part of the MGH Postpartum Psychosis Project to better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, and also to understand the possible genomic underpinning of the illness. Most recently, we are conducting a neuroimaging study of women with histories of postpartum psychosis, compared with women in a healthy control group. We hope the results of this novel investigation will help to answer whether there is a neural signature identifiable with neuroimaging techniques such as functional MRI, if those findings are similar to other findings of neural circuitry we see in other forms of psychotic illness, or if the illness has a more distinct neural signature.

A question patients and colleagues often ask is what is the long-term nature of postpartum psychosis. If one considers it clearly to be bipolar disorder, the most intuitive approach would be long-term treatment with mood stabilizers. We now have a growing amount of data on the longitudinal course of postpartum psychosis. In one meta-analysis, 64% of women who had an episode of postpartum psychosis developed episodes of recurrent psychiatric disorder mostly consistent with bipolar illness. However, 36% of women appear to have more circumscribed illness without recurrence. In those women with recurrent disease, the presumption was those patients who had bipolar disorder and their presentation postpartum was simply their index episode of bipolar illness. However, there were other women who looked as if they had developed subsequent illness over the 11-26 years of follow-up, and those women did not receive long-term treatment.

A more recent prospective study of 106 women with postpartum psychosis who had their medication tapered and discontinued showed that 32% of women went on to have recurrent disease with a median time to illness of 20.3 months, and those patients presented primarily with illness that looked like bipolar disorder.

These accumulating data support the impression we’ve had for years that there’s a very strong relationship between bipolar disorder and postpartum psychiatric illness. Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, the acute treatment is really the same. The real question for the clinician is what to do over the long term. Frequently, patients feel very strongly about a taper and discontinuation of medicine, and even the data show between 30% and 45% of women seem to have relatively circumscribed disease. There may be an issue in terms of prophylaxis if a patient gets pregnant and delivers another child, but that’s a separate issue. The issue is really whether there is a way to “thread the clinical needle” and meet patients where they are who do not want to continue long-term treatment.

I think we are at a point where we could argue the clinical treatment algorithm for patients who present with a new-onset manic-like psychosis postpartum is clear: initial treatment to stabilize, and then treatment with mood stabilizers for at least 12 months to follow is indicated. However, it may also be reasonable to taper treatment at 12-18 months, particularly for patients who have discussed this option with their clinician and who have been totally well for a year. (Women with previously documented bipolar disorder who have episodes of postpartum psychosis should obviously be treated with longer-term treatment aimed at maintenance of euthymia, as discontinuation of mood stabilizer is well known to be associated with risk for relapse.)

It should be noted that the longitudinal course and the treatment implications for women with postpartum psychosis are not etched in stone absent a clear evidence base driving care guidelines. Treatment must still be individualized. Women with underlying mood diatheses will typically declare themselves over time, and others may do well if they discontinue treatment, particularly if they are followed closely and instructed to present to a clinician at the earliest symptoms of mood dysregulation. The good news is we’ve seen an evolution of both interest and expertise in acute management of postpartum psychosis and a richer appreciation of the potential heterogeneity of this sample of women. There may be some variability in terms of long-term course requiring personalized treatment and obviously close follow-up of these women.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

The last 15 years have brought increased effort to screen for postpartum psychiatric illness. That’s exceedingly welcome given the morbidity and potential mortality associated with postpartum psychiatric disorders across the country.

From small community hospitals to major academic centers, screening for postpartum depression is part of the clinical fabric of routine obstetrical care. There is a growing appreciation for the complexity of perinatal psychiatric illness, particularly with respect to the commingling of both mood and anxiety disorders during the postpartum period. However, willingness to treat and appreciation of the urgency to treat with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions can vary. For women who suffer from postpartum depression and their families, there are real-world implications of both treating and failing to treat this illness, and there is an urgent need to really help these women “climb out of the darkness” that is and defines postpartum depression.

Less common but of great clinical importance is postpartum psychosis, which occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000-2,000 women based on estimates from several studies. As noted in previous columns, the presentation is a dramatic one, with the typical onset of psychotic symptoms in the first days to weeks post partum. The disorder typically has a mood component and is not an exacerbation of underlying chronic psychotic illness. While there have been few systematic treatment studies, the clinical consensus is treatment usually includes hospitalization to ensure the safety of both the patient and infant. Use of medications, including mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines may be appropriate when expeditious treatment is needed.

Appropriate treatment by informed clinical staff is essential, as untreated or incompletely treated postpartum psychosis with its attendant morbidity and potential mortality is a very real concern. As I speak with women across the country with histories of postpartum psychosis, I’m often told of the difficult exchanges that women and their partners have at EDs in various clinical settings where diagnosis was delayed, or treatment was incomplete because of staff without expertise in postpartum psychosis management.

Another dilemma that patients and clinicians face after acute treatment is treatment duration, which is derived from how we conceptualize the illness. Even for experts in the area, there is not a consensus on whether postpartum psychosis should be considered as bipolar disorder or whether it is a circumscribed diagnostic entity. This issue has been hotly debated for many years and is one of the reasons why the illness is not included in the DSM classification system.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, we are systematically studying a large cohort of women with histories of postpartum psychosis as part of the MGH Postpartum Psychosis Project to better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, and also to understand the possible genomic underpinning of the illness. Most recently, we are conducting a neuroimaging study of women with histories of postpartum psychosis, compared with women in a healthy control group. We hope the results of this novel investigation will help to answer whether there is a neural signature identifiable with neuroimaging techniques such as functional MRI, if those findings are similar to other findings of neural circuitry we see in other forms of psychotic illness, or if the illness has a more distinct neural signature.

A question patients and colleagues often ask is what is the long-term nature of postpartum psychosis. If one considers it clearly to be bipolar disorder, the most intuitive approach would be long-term treatment with mood stabilizers. We now have a growing amount of data on the longitudinal course of postpartum psychosis. In one meta-analysis, 64% of women who had an episode of postpartum psychosis developed episodes of recurrent psychiatric disorder mostly consistent with bipolar illness. However, 36% of women appear to have more circumscribed illness without recurrence. In those women with recurrent disease, the presumption was those patients who had bipolar disorder and their presentation postpartum was simply their index episode of bipolar illness. However, there were other women who looked as if they had developed subsequent illness over the 11-26 years of follow-up, and those women did not receive long-term treatment.

A more recent prospective study of 106 women with postpartum psychosis who had their medication tapered and discontinued showed that 32% of women went on to have recurrent disease with a median time to illness of 20.3 months, and those patients presented primarily with illness that looked like bipolar disorder.

These accumulating data support the impression we’ve had for years that there’s a very strong relationship between bipolar disorder and postpartum psychiatric illness. Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, the acute treatment is really the same. The real question for the clinician is what to do over the long term. Frequently, patients feel very strongly about a taper and discontinuation of medicine, and even the data show between 30% and 45% of women seem to have relatively circumscribed disease. There may be an issue in terms of prophylaxis if a patient gets pregnant and delivers another child, but that’s a separate issue. The issue is really whether there is a way to “thread the clinical needle” and meet patients where they are who do not want to continue long-term treatment.

I think we are at a point where we could argue the clinical treatment algorithm for patients who present with a new-onset manic-like psychosis postpartum is clear: initial treatment to stabilize, and then treatment with mood stabilizers for at least 12 months to follow is indicated. However, it may also be reasonable to taper treatment at 12-18 months, particularly for patients who have discussed this option with their clinician and who have been totally well for a year. (Women with previously documented bipolar disorder who have episodes of postpartum psychosis should obviously be treated with longer-term treatment aimed at maintenance of euthymia, as discontinuation of mood stabilizer is well known to be associated with risk for relapse.)

It should be noted that the longitudinal course and the treatment implications for women with postpartum psychosis are not etched in stone absent a clear evidence base driving care guidelines. Treatment must still be individualized. Women with underlying mood diatheses will typically declare themselves over time, and others may do well if they discontinue treatment, particularly if they are followed closely and instructed to present to a clinician at the earliest symptoms of mood dysregulation. The good news is we’ve seen an evolution of both interest and expertise in acute management of postpartum psychosis and a richer appreciation of the potential heterogeneity of this sample of women. There may be some variability in terms of long-term course requiring personalized treatment and obviously close follow-up of these women.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

The last 15 years have brought increased effort to screen for postpartum psychiatric illness. That’s exceedingly welcome given the morbidity and potential mortality associated with postpartum psychiatric disorders across the country.

From small community hospitals to major academic centers, screening for postpartum depression is part of the clinical fabric of routine obstetrical care. There is a growing appreciation for the complexity of perinatal psychiatric illness, particularly with respect to the commingling of both mood and anxiety disorders during the postpartum period. However, willingness to treat and appreciation of the urgency to treat with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions can vary. For women who suffer from postpartum depression and their families, there are real-world implications of both treating and failing to treat this illness, and there is an urgent need to really help these women “climb out of the darkness” that is and defines postpartum depression.

Less common but of great clinical importance is postpartum psychosis, which occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000-2,000 women based on estimates from several studies. As noted in previous columns, the presentation is a dramatic one, with the typical onset of psychotic symptoms in the first days to weeks post partum. The disorder typically has a mood component and is not an exacerbation of underlying chronic psychotic illness. While there have been few systematic treatment studies, the clinical consensus is treatment usually includes hospitalization to ensure the safety of both the patient and infant. Use of medications, including mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines may be appropriate when expeditious treatment is needed.

Appropriate treatment by informed clinical staff is essential, as untreated or incompletely treated postpartum psychosis with its attendant morbidity and potential mortality is a very real concern. As I speak with women across the country with histories of postpartum psychosis, I’m often told of the difficult exchanges that women and their partners have at EDs in various clinical settings where diagnosis was delayed, or treatment was incomplete because of staff without expertise in postpartum psychosis management.

Another dilemma that patients and clinicians face after acute treatment is treatment duration, which is derived from how we conceptualize the illness. Even for experts in the area, there is not a consensus on whether postpartum psychosis should be considered as bipolar disorder or whether it is a circumscribed diagnostic entity. This issue has been hotly debated for many years and is one of the reasons why the illness is not included in the DSM classification system.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, we are systematically studying a large cohort of women with histories of postpartum psychosis as part of the MGH Postpartum Psychosis Project to better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, and also to understand the possible genomic underpinning of the illness. Most recently, we are conducting a neuroimaging study of women with histories of postpartum psychosis, compared with women in a healthy control group. We hope the results of this novel investigation will help to answer whether there is a neural signature identifiable with neuroimaging techniques such as functional MRI, if those findings are similar to other findings of neural circuitry we see in other forms of psychotic illness, or if the illness has a more distinct neural signature.

A question patients and colleagues often ask is what is the long-term nature of postpartum psychosis. If one considers it clearly to be bipolar disorder, the most intuitive approach would be long-term treatment with mood stabilizers. We now have a growing amount of data on the longitudinal course of postpartum psychosis. In one meta-analysis, 64% of women who had an episode of postpartum psychosis developed episodes of recurrent psychiatric disorder mostly consistent with bipolar illness. However, 36% of women appear to have more circumscribed illness without recurrence. In those women with recurrent disease, the presumption was those patients who had bipolar disorder and their presentation postpartum was simply their index episode of bipolar illness. However, there were other women who looked as if they had developed subsequent illness over the 11-26 years of follow-up, and those women did not receive long-term treatment.

A more recent prospective study of 106 women with postpartum psychosis who had their medication tapered and discontinued showed that 32% of women went on to have recurrent disease with a median time to illness of 20.3 months, and those patients presented primarily with illness that looked like bipolar disorder.

These accumulating data support the impression we’ve had for years that there’s a very strong relationship between bipolar disorder and postpartum psychiatric illness. Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, the acute treatment is really the same. The real question for the clinician is what to do over the long term. Frequently, patients feel very strongly about a taper and discontinuation of medicine, and even the data show between 30% and 45% of women seem to have relatively circumscribed disease. There may be an issue in terms of prophylaxis if a patient gets pregnant and delivers another child, but that’s a separate issue. The issue is really whether there is a way to “thread the clinical needle” and meet patients where they are who do not want to continue long-term treatment.

I think we are at a point where we could argue the clinical treatment algorithm for patients who present with a new-onset manic-like psychosis postpartum is clear: initial treatment to stabilize, and then treatment with mood stabilizers for at least 12 months to follow is indicated. However, it may also be reasonable to taper treatment at 12-18 months, particularly for patients who have discussed this option with their clinician and who have been totally well for a year. (Women with previously documented bipolar disorder who have episodes of postpartum psychosis should obviously be treated with longer-term treatment aimed at maintenance of euthymia, as discontinuation of mood stabilizer is well known to be associated with risk for relapse.)

It should be noted that the longitudinal course and the treatment implications for women with postpartum psychosis are not etched in stone absent a clear evidence base driving care guidelines. Treatment must still be individualized. Women with underlying mood diatheses will typically declare themselves over time, and others may do well if they discontinue treatment, particularly if they are followed closely and instructed to present to a clinician at the earliest symptoms of mood dysregulation. The good news is we’ve seen an evolution of both interest and expertise in acute management of postpartum psychosis and a richer appreciation of the potential heterogeneity of this sample of women. There may be some variability in terms of long-term course requiring personalized treatment and obviously close follow-up of these women.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

WAUKEGAN, Ill. – Around 2 days a week, Natalee Hartwig, APNP, leaves her home in Madison, Wisconsin, before her son wakes up to travel across the border into Illinois.

“Luckily it’s summer,” said Ms. Hartwig, a nurse midwife at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. “For now, he can sleep in. But any getting ready that has to happen will be on my spouse.”

She drives at least 2 hours each way, immersed in audiobooks and podcasts as she heads back and forth from a clinic in this northern Illinois suburb. She spends her days in the recovery room, caring for patients who have had abortions and checking their vitals before they go home. She is also licensed in Illinois and trained to provide medication abortion, something she’ll be able to do virtually through telehealth with patients across Illinois.

Ms. Hartwig is essentially working part time in Illinois because when Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, a state law immediately took effect that bans nearly all abortions in Wisconsin, except to save the life of the pregnant person. Wisconsin providers want to preserve access for patients, while those in Illinois – long an oasis for abortion rights – need more staff to help treat a surge of people arriving from across the U.S.

The Waukegan clinic is Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ busiest for out-of-state abortion patients. After Roe fell, 60% of patients came to this clinic from outside the state – mostly from Wisconsin. In fact, the organization opened in Waukegan 2 years ago with Wisconsin in mind, knowing that if Roe v. Wade did fall, access to abortion in that state would greatly diminish.

After Roe was struck down, Planned Parenthood organizations in both states announced their partnership. More than a dozen employees from Wisconsin – including doctors, nurses, and medical assistants – now commute to Waukegan to help provide care.

“It really required this perfect pairing of supply and demand,” said Kristen Schultz, Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ chief strategy and operations officer. “They had capacity without local demand, and we had the opposite.”

In the month after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal landmark decision, Illinois became even more of an oasis for people seeking abortions. Dozens of clinics closed across the nation as 11 states in the South and Midwest implemented bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that supports abortion rights and tracks the issue.

The influx of patients into Illinois has had another effect. For years, abortion providers have been traveling once or twice a month to other states like Kansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, where their help was badly needed.

Laura Laursen, MD, an ob.gyn. in Chicago, was one of them.

“Now the script is totally flipped,” said Dr. Laursen, a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. “This is where you are needed more than anywhere else.”

Anti-abortion groups oppose the Planned Parenthood partnership and are preparing for a marathon effort to restrict abortion rights in Illinois. In a statement after the organization’s announcement, Amy Gehrke, executive director of Illinois Right to Life, called it “particularly tragic.”

Some of the Wisconsin providers commute to Waukegan a few times a week; others a few days a month.

For Ms. Hartwig, associate director of clinical services at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, she’s able to do more in Illinois for patients than she could back home. Even as a nurse with an advanced degree, she wasn’t allowed to provide medication abortions in Wisconsin. But she can in Illinois, according to the state Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

“This was really just what I was always supposed to do,” Ms. Hartwig said. “There’s nothing that’s going to keep me from helping our patients.”

Kathy King, MD, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s medical director, said that while her staff is dedicated to providing these services, it comes at a cost.

“It is a burden on our clinicians and nurses and medical assistants who have young children at home,” Dr. King said. “It sounds great. Sure, we’ll all just travel down to Waukegan 5 days a week. But the logistics of that and the sacrifice of doing that on just people’s day-to-day lives takes a toll.”

Still, this sacrifice has helped. With staff from Wisconsin, the Waukegan clinic has doubled the number of abortion appointments available, and it is still ramping up. The support frees up other staffers to treat patients with different needs, like birth control and cancer screenings.

There has been a surge of patients from Wisconsin for abortion appointments at all Planned Parenthood of Illinois clinics – a tenfold increase in the month after Roe was overturned, from about 35 patients a month to 350, Dr. King said. That doesn’t include Wisconsin residents who might have sought abortions with other providers.

The partnership at the Waukegan clinic has ignited interest from abortion providers in other nearby states. Planned Parenthood of Illinois is fielding calls from Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, for example, Ms. Schultz said.

What Illinois needs is more staff to treat more patients. The commute from Wisconsin to Waukegan is relatively short compared with abortion providers in Ohio, for example, who’d have to cross Indiana to help relieve the staffing need.

Across the nation, other conversations are happening among providers. The National Abortion Federation, which has about 500 facility members including independent abortion clinics and hospitals, is pairing up people looking for jobs at clinics with those that need workers, said Melissa Fowler, chief program officer at the federation.

Still, she acknowledged moving isn’t a realistic option for everyone.

“People have lives,” Ms. Fowler said. “They have families. They’re deeply rooted in their communities. ... And so a situation like you’re seeing in Illinois and Wisconsin is great because people are able to stay connected to their community, not have to move their family, and still be able to provide care.”

This story is part of a partnership that includes WBEZ Chicago, NPR, and KHN.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

WAUKEGAN, Ill. – Around 2 days a week, Natalee Hartwig, APNP, leaves her home in Madison, Wisconsin, before her son wakes up to travel across the border into Illinois.

“Luckily it’s summer,” said Ms. Hartwig, a nurse midwife at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. “For now, he can sleep in. But any getting ready that has to happen will be on my spouse.”

She drives at least 2 hours each way, immersed in audiobooks and podcasts as she heads back and forth from a clinic in this northern Illinois suburb. She spends her days in the recovery room, caring for patients who have had abortions and checking their vitals before they go home. She is also licensed in Illinois and trained to provide medication abortion, something she’ll be able to do virtually through telehealth with patients across Illinois.

Ms. Hartwig is essentially working part time in Illinois because when Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, a state law immediately took effect that bans nearly all abortions in Wisconsin, except to save the life of the pregnant person. Wisconsin providers want to preserve access for patients, while those in Illinois – long an oasis for abortion rights – need more staff to help treat a surge of people arriving from across the U.S.

The Waukegan clinic is Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ busiest for out-of-state abortion patients. After Roe fell, 60% of patients came to this clinic from outside the state – mostly from Wisconsin. In fact, the organization opened in Waukegan 2 years ago with Wisconsin in mind, knowing that if Roe v. Wade did fall, access to abortion in that state would greatly diminish.

After Roe was struck down, Planned Parenthood organizations in both states announced their partnership. More than a dozen employees from Wisconsin – including doctors, nurses, and medical assistants – now commute to Waukegan to help provide care.

“It really required this perfect pairing of supply and demand,” said Kristen Schultz, Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ chief strategy and operations officer. “They had capacity without local demand, and we had the opposite.”

In the month after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal landmark decision, Illinois became even more of an oasis for people seeking abortions. Dozens of clinics closed across the nation as 11 states in the South and Midwest implemented bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that supports abortion rights and tracks the issue.

The influx of patients into Illinois has had another effect. For years, abortion providers have been traveling once or twice a month to other states like Kansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, where their help was badly needed.

Laura Laursen, MD, an ob.gyn. in Chicago, was one of them.

“Now the script is totally flipped,” said Dr. Laursen, a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. “This is where you are needed more than anywhere else.”

Anti-abortion groups oppose the Planned Parenthood partnership and are preparing for a marathon effort to restrict abortion rights in Illinois. In a statement after the organization’s announcement, Amy Gehrke, executive director of Illinois Right to Life, called it “particularly tragic.”

Some of the Wisconsin providers commute to Waukegan a few times a week; others a few days a month.

For Ms. Hartwig, associate director of clinical services at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, she’s able to do more in Illinois for patients than she could back home. Even as a nurse with an advanced degree, she wasn’t allowed to provide medication abortions in Wisconsin. But she can in Illinois, according to the state Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

“This was really just what I was always supposed to do,” Ms. Hartwig said. “There’s nothing that’s going to keep me from helping our patients.”

Kathy King, MD, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s medical director, said that while her staff is dedicated to providing these services, it comes at a cost.

“It is a burden on our clinicians and nurses and medical assistants who have young children at home,” Dr. King said. “It sounds great. Sure, we’ll all just travel down to Waukegan 5 days a week. But the logistics of that and the sacrifice of doing that on just people’s day-to-day lives takes a toll.”

Still, this sacrifice has helped. With staff from Wisconsin, the Waukegan clinic has doubled the number of abortion appointments available, and it is still ramping up. The support frees up other staffers to treat patients with different needs, like birth control and cancer screenings.

There has been a surge of patients from Wisconsin for abortion appointments at all Planned Parenthood of Illinois clinics – a tenfold increase in the month after Roe was overturned, from about 35 patients a month to 350, Dr. King said. That doesn’t include Wisconsin residents who might have sought abortions with other providers.

The partnership at the Waukegan clinic has ignited interest from abortion providers in other nearby states. Planned Parenthood of Illinois is fielding calls from Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, for example, Ms. Schultz said.

What Illinois needs is more staff to treat more patients. The commute from Wisconsin to Waukegan is relatively short compared with abortion providers in Ohio, for example, who’d have to cross Indiana to help relieve the staffing need.

Across the nation, other conversations are happening among providers. The National Abortion Federation, which has about 500 facility members including independent abortion clinics and hospitals, is pairing up people looking for jobs at clinics with those that need workers, said Melissa Fowler, chief program officer at the federation.

Still, she acknowledged moving isn’t a realistic option for everyone.

“People have lives,” Ms. Fowler said. “They have families. They’re deeply rooted in their communities. ... And so a situation like you’re seeing in Illinois and Wisconsin is great because people are able to stay connected to their community, not have to move their family, and still be able to provide care.”

This story is part of a partnership that includes WBEZ Chicago, NPR, and KHN.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

WAUKEGAN, Ill. – Around 2 days a week, Natalee Hartwig, APNP, leaves her home in Madison, Wisconsin, before her son wakes up to travel across the border into Illinois.

“Luckily it’s summer,” said Ms. Hartwig, a nurse midwife at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. “For now, he can sleep in. But any getting ready that has to happen will be on my spouse.”

She drives at least 2 hours each way, immersed in audiobooks and podcasts as she heads back and forth from a clinic in this northern Illinois suburb. She spends her days in the recovery room, caring for patients who have had abortions and checking their vitals before they go home. She is also licensed in Illinois and trained to provide medication abortion, something she’ll be able to do virtually through telehealth with patients across Illinois.

Ms. Hartwig is essentially working part time in Illinois because when Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, a state law immediately took effect that bans nearly all abortions in Wisconsin, except to save the life of the pregnant person. Wisconsin providers want to preserve access for patients, while those in Illinois – long an oasis for abortion rights – need more staff to help treat a surge of people arriving from across the U.S.

The Waukegan clinic is Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ busiest for out-of-state abortion patients. After Roe fell, 60% of patients came to this clinic from outside the state – mostly from Wisconsin. In fact, the organization opened in Waukegan 2 years ago with Wisconsin in mind, knowing that if Roe v. Wade did fall, access to abortion in that state would greatly diminish.

After Roe was struck down, Planned Parenthood organizations in both states announced their partnership. More than a dozen employees from Wisconsin – including doctors, nurses, and medical assistants – now commute to Waukegan to help provide care.

“It really required this perfect pairing of supply and demand,” said Kristen Schultz, Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ chief strategy and operations officer. “They had capacity without local demand, and we had the opposite.”

In the month after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal landmark decision, Illinois became even more of an oasis for people seeking abortions. Dozens of clinics closed across the nation as 11 states in the South and Midwest implemented bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that supports abortion rights and tracks the issue.

The influx of patients into Illinois has had another effect. For years, abortion providers have been traveling once or twice a month to other states like Kansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, where their help was badly needed.

Laura Laursen, MD, an ob.gyn. in Chicago, was one of them.

“Now the script is totally flipped,” said Dr. Laursen, a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. “This is where you are needed more than anywhere else.”

Anti-abortion groups oppose the Planned Parenthood partnership and are preparing for a marathon effort to restrict abortion rights in Illinois. In a statement after the organization’s announcement, Amy Gehrke, executive director of Illinois Right to Life, called it “particularly tragic.”

Some of the Wisconsin providers commute to Waukegan a few times a week; others a few days a month.

For Ms. Hartwig, associate director of clinical services at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, she’s able to do more in Illinois for patients than she could back home. Even as a nurse with an advanced degree, she wasn’t allowed to provide medication abortions in Wisconsin. But she can in Illinois, according to the state Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

“This was really just what I was always supposed to do,” Ms. Hartwig said. “There’s nothing that’s going to keep me from helping our patients.”

Kathy King, MD, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s medical director, said that while her staff is dedicated to providing these services, it comes at a cost.

“It is a burden on our clinicians and nurses and medical assistants who have young children at home,” Dr. King said. “It sounds great. Sure, we’ll all just travel down to Waukegan 5 days a week. But the logistics of that and the sacrifice of doing that on just people’s day-to-day lives takes a toll.”

Still, this sacrifice has helped. With staff from Wisconsin, the Waukegan clinic has doubled the number of abortion appointments available, and it is still ramping up. The support frees up other staffers to treat patients with different needs, like birth control and cancer screenings.

There has been a surge of patients from Wisconsin for abortion appointments at all Planned Parenthood of Illinois clinics – a tenfold increase in the month after Roe was overturned, from about 35 patients a month to 350, Dr. King said. That doesn’t include Wisconsin residents who might have sought abortions with other providers.

The partnership at the Waukegan clinic has ignited interest from abortion providers in other nearby states. Planned Parenthood of Illinois is fielding calls from Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, for example, Ms. Schultz said.

What Illinois needs is more staff to treat more patients. The commute from Wisconsin to Waukegan is relatively short compared with abortion providers in Ohio, for example, who’d have to cross Indiana to help relieve the staffing need.

Across the nation, other conversations are happening among providers. The National Abortion Federation, which has about 500 facility members including independent abortion clinics and hospitals, is pairing up people looking for jobs at clinics with those that need workers, said Melissa Fowler, chief program officer at the federation.

Still, she acknowledged moving isn’t a realistic option for everyone.

“People have lives,” Ms. Fowler said. “They have families. They’re deeply rooted in their communities. ... And so a situation like you’re seeing in Illinois and Wisconsin is great because people are able to stay connected to their community, not have to move their family, and still be able to provide care.”

This story is part of a partnership that includes WBEZ Chicago, NPR, and KHN.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.