The youngest patient with cannabis-induced psychosis (CIP) whom Karen Randall, DO, has treated was a 7-year-old boy. She remembers the screaming, the yelling, the uncontrollable rage.

Dr. Randall is an emergency medicine physician at Southern Colorado Emergency Medicine Associates, a group practice in Pueblo, Colo. She treats youth for cannabis-related medical problems in the emergency department an average of two or three times per shift, she said.

Colorado legalized the recreational use of cannabis for adults older than 21 in 2012. Since then, Dr. Randall said, she has noticed an uptick in cannabis use among youth, as well as an increase in CIP, a syndrome that can be indistinguishable from other psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia in the emergency department. But the two conditions require different approaches to care.

“You can’t differentiate unless you know the patient,” Dr. Randall said in an interview.

In 2019, 37% of high school students in the United States reported ever using marijuana, and 22% reported use in the past 30 days. Rates remained steady in 2020 following increases in 2018 and 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC also found that 8% of 8th graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders reported vaping marijuana in the past year.

Clinicians in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized say they have noticed an increase in young patients with psychiatric problems – especially after consumption of cannabis products in high doses. But CIP can be tricky to distinguish from psychoses of other causes, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which often begin to present in adolescence.
 

How to differentiate

CIP is characterized by delusions and hallucinations and sometimes anxiety, disorganized thoughts, paranoia, dissociation, and changes in mood and behavior. Symptoms typically last for a couple hours and do not require specific treatment, although they can persist, depending on a patient’s tolerance and the dose of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) they have consumed. Research suggests that the higher the dose and concentration of the drug consumed, the more likely a person will develop symptoms of psychosis.

Diagnosis requires gathering information on previous bipolar disorder or schizophrenia diagnosis, prescriptions for mental illness indications, whether there is a family history of mental illness, and whether the patient recently started using marijuana. In some cases, marijuana use might exacerbate or unmask mental illness.

If symptoms of CIP resolve, and usually they do, clinicians can recommend that patients abstain from cannabis going forward, and psychosis would not need further treatment, according to Divya Singh, MD, a psychiatrist at Banner Behavioral Health Hospital in Scottsdale, Ariz., where recreational cannabis became legal in 2020.

“When I have limited information, especially in the first couple of days, I err on the side of safety,” Dr. Singh said.

Psychosis is the combination of symptoms, including delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized behavior, but it is not a disorder in itself. Rather, it is the primary symptom of schizophrenia and other chronic psychiatric illnesses.

Schizophrenia can be diagnosed only after a patient presents with signs of disturbance for at least 6 months, according to guidelines in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Dr. Singh said a diagnosis of schizophrenia cannot be made in a one-off interaction.

If the patient is younger than 24 years and has no family history of mental illness, a full recovery is likely if the patient abstains from marijuana, he said. But if the patient does have a family history, “the chances of them having a full-blown mental illness is very high,” Dr. Singh said.

If a patient reports that he or she has recently started using marijuana and was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, Dr. Singh said he generally prescribes medications such as lithium or quetiapine and refers the patient to services such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. He also advises against continuing use of cannabis.

“Cannabis can result in people requiring a higher dose of medication than they took before,” Dr. Singh said. “If they were stable on 600 mg of lithium before, they might need more and may never be able to lower the dose in some cases, even after the acute episode.”
 

The science of cannabis

As of March 2023, 21 states and the District of Columbia permit the recreational use of marijuana, according to the Congressional Research Service. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia allow medicinal use of marijuana, and 10 states allow “limited access to medical cannabis,” defined as low-THC cannabis or cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. It creates a high feeling after binding with receptors in the brain that control pain and mood. CBD is another chemical found in cannabis, but it does not create a high.

Some research suggests cannabinoids may help reduce anxiety, reduce inflammation, relieve pain, control nausea, reduce cancer cells, slow the growth of tumor cells, relax tight muscles, and stimulate appetite.

The drug also carries risks, according to Mayo Clinic. Use of marijuana is linked to mental health problems in teens and adults, such as depression, social anxiety, and temporary psychosis, and long-lasting mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.

In the worst cases, CIP can persist for weeks or months – long after a negative drug test – and sometimes does not subside at all, according to Ken Finn, MD, president and founder of Springs Rehabilitation, PC, a pain medicine practice in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Dr. Finn, the co–vice president of the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis, which opposes making the drug more accessible, said educating health care providers is an urgent need.

Studies are mixed on whether the legalization of cannabis has led to more cases of CIP.

A 2021 study found that experiences of psychosis among users of cannabis jumped 2.5-fold between 2001 and 2013. But a study published earlier this year of more than 63 million medical claims from 2003 to 2017 found no statistically significant difference in rates of psychosis-related diagnoses or prescribed antipsychotics in states that have legalized medical or recreational cannabis compared with states where cannabis is still illegal. However, a secondary analysis did find that rates of psychosis-related diagnoses increased significantly among men, people aged 55-64 years, and Asian adults in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized.

Complicating matters, researchers say, is the question of causality. Cannabis may exacerbate or trigger psychosis, but people with an underlying psychological illness may also be more likely to use cannabis.

Dr. Finn said clinicians in Colorado and other states with legalization laws are seeing more patients with CIP. As more states consider legalizing recreational marijuana, he expects the data will reflect what doctors experience on the ground.

Cannabis-induced “psychosis is complicated and likely underdiagnosed,” Dr. Finn said.
 

Talking to teens

Clinicians outside the emergency department can play a role in aiding young people at risk for CIP. Primary care physicians, for instance, might explain to young patients that the brain only becomes fully developed at roughly age 26, after which the long-term health consequences of using cannabis become less likely. According to the CDC, using cannabis before age 18 can change how the brain builds connections and can impair attention, memory, and learning.

Dr. Singh takes a harm reduction approach when he engages with a patient who is forthcoming about substance use.

“If I see an 18-year-old, I tell them to abstain,” he said. “I tell them if they are ever going to use it, to use it after 26.”

Clinicians also should understand dosages to provide the optimal guidance to their patients who use cannabis.

“People often have no idea how much cannabis they are taking,” especially when using vape cartridges, Dr. Singh said. “If you don’t know, you can’t tell patients about the harms – and if you tell them the wrong information, they will write you off.”

Dr. Singh said he advises his patients to avoid using cannabis vapes or dabbing pens. Both can contain much higher levels of THC than dried flower or edible forms of the drug. He also says patients should stick with low concentrations and use products that contain CBD, which some studies have shown has a protective effect against CIP, although other studies have found that CBD can induce anxiety.

He also tells patients to buy from legal dispensaries and to avoid buying street products that may have methamphetamine or fentanyl mixed in.

Despite the risks, Dr. Singh said legalization can reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use and may prompt patients to be honest with their clinicians. Dr. Singh recalled a 28-year-old patient who was using cannabis to alleviate her arthritic pain. She also was taking a transplant medication, which carried potential side effects of delirium, generalized anxiety disorder, and hallucinosis. After doubling her THC dose, the patient experienced severe anxiety and paranoia.

Dr. Singh’s patient paid him a visit and asked for help. Dr. Singh told her to reduce the dose and to keep track of how she felt. If she continued to feel anxious and paranoid, he recommended that she switch to CBD instead.

“I think education and knowledge is liberating,” Dr. Singh said. “Legalization and frank conversations help people understand how to use a product – and right now, I think that’s lacking.”
 

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

The youngest patient with cannabis-induced psychosis (CIP) whom Karen Randall, DO, has treated was a 7-year-old boy. She remembers the screaming, the yelling, the uncontrollable rage.

Dr. Randall is an emergency medicine physician at Southern Colorado Emergency Medicine Associates, a group practice in Pueblo, Colo. She treats youth for cannabis-related medical problems in the emergency department an average of two or three times per shift, she said.

Colorado legalized the recreational use of cannabis for adults older than 21 in 2012. Since then, Dr. Randall said, she has noticed an uptick in cannabis use among youth, as well as an increase in CIP, a syndrome that can be indistinguishable from other psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia in the emergency department. But the two conditions require different approaches to care.

“You can’t differentiate unless you know the patient,” Dr. Randall said in an interview.

In 2019, 37% of high school students in the United States reported ever using marijuana, and 22% reported use in the past 30 days. Rates remained steady in 2020 following increases in 2018 and 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC also found that 8% of 8th graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders reported vaping marijuana in the past year.

Clinicians in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized say they have noticed an increase in young patients with psychiatric problems – especially after consumption of cannabis products in high doses. But CIP can be tricky to distinguish from psychoses of other causes, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which often begin to present in adolescence.
 

How to differentiate

CIP is characterized by delusions and hallucinations and sometimes anxiety, disorganized thoughts, paranoia, dissociation, and changes in mood and behavior. Symptoms typically last for a couple hours and do not require specific treatment, although they can persist, depending on a patient’s tolerance and the dose of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) they have consumed. Research suggests that the higher the dose and concentration of the drug consumed, the more likely a person will develop symptoms of psychosis.

Diagnosis requires gathering information on previous bipolar disorder or schizophrenia diagnosis, prescriptions for mental illness indications, whether there is a family history of mental illness, and whether the patient recently started using marijuana. In some cases, marijuana use might exacerbate or unmask mental illness.

If symptoms of CIP resolve, and usually they do, clinicians can recommend that patients abstain from cannabis going forward, and psychosis would not need further treatment, according to Divya Singh, MD, a psychiatrist at Banner Behavioral Health Hospital in Scottsdale, Ariz., where recreational cannabis became legal in 2020.

“When I have limited information, especially in the first couple of days, I err on the side of safety,” Dr. Singh said.

Psychosis is the combination of symptoms, including delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized behavior, but it is not a disorder in itself. Rather, it is the primary symptom of schizophrenia and other chronic psychiatric illnesses.

Schizophrenia can be diagnosed only after a patient presents with signs of disturbance for at least 6 months, according to guidelines in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Dr. Singh said a diagnosis of schizophrenia cannot be made in a one-off interaction.

If the patient is younger than 24 years and has no family history of mental illness, a full recovery is likely if the patient abstains from marijuana, he said. But if the patient does have a family history, “the chances of them having a full-blown mental illness is very high,” Dr. Singh said.

If a patient reports that he or she has recently started using marijuana and was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, Dr. Singh said he generally prescribes medications such as lithium or quetiapine and refers the patient to services such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. He also advises against continuing use of cannabis.

“Cannabis can result in people requiring a higher dose of medication than they took before,” Dr. Singh said. “If they were stable on 600 mg of lithium before, they might need more and may never be able to lower the dose in some cases, even after the acute episode.”
 

The science of cannabis

As of March 2023, 21 states and the District of Columbia permit the recreational use of marijuana, according to the Congressional Research Service. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia allow medicinal use of marijuana, and 10 states allow “limited access to medical cannabis,” defined as low-THC cannabis or cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. It creates a high feeling after binding with receptors in the brain that control pain and mood. CBD is another chemical found in cannabis, but it does not create a high.

Some research suggests cannabinoids may help reduce anxiety, reduce inflammation, relieve pain, control nausea, reduce cancer cells, slow the growth of tumor cells, relax tight muscles, and stimulate appetite.

The drug also carries risks, according to Mayo Clinic. Use of marijuana is linked to mental health problems in teens and adults, such as depression, social anxiety, and temporary psychosis, and long-lasting mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.

In the worst cases, CIP can persist for weeks or months – long after a negative drug test – and sometimes does not subside at all, according to Ken Finn, MD, president and founder of Springs Rehabilitation, PC, a pain medicine practice in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Dr. Finn, the co–vice president of the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis, which opposes making the drug more accessible, said educating health care providers is an urgent need.

Studies are mixed on whether the legalization of cannabis has led to more cases of CIP.

A 2021 study found that experiences of psychosis among users of cannabis jumped 2.5-fold between 2001 and 2013. But a study published earlier this year of more than 63 million medical claims from 2003 to 2017 found no statistically significant difference in rates of psychosis-related diagnoses or prescribed antipsychotics in states that have legalized medical or recreational cannabis compared with states where cannabis is still illegal. However, a secondary analysis did find that rates of psychosis-related diagnoses increased significantly among men, people aged 55-64 years, and Asian adults in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized.

Complicating matters, researchers say, is the question of causality. Cannabis may exacerbate or trigger psychosis, but people with an underlying psychological illness may also be more likely to use cannabis.

Dr. Finn said clinicians in Colorado and other states with legalization laws are seeing more patients with CIP. As more states consider legalizing recreational marijuana, he expects the data will reflect what doctors experience on the ground.

Cannabis-induced “psychosis is complicated and likely underdiagnosed,” Dr. Finn said.
 

Talking to teens

Clinicians outside the emergency department can play a role in aiding young people at risk for CIP. Primary care physicians, for instance, might explain to young patients that the brain only becomes fully developed at roughly age 26, after which the long-term health consequences of using cannabis become less likely. According to the CDC, using cannabis before age 18 can change how the brain builds connections and can impair attention, memory, and learning.

Dr. Singh takes a harm reduction approach when he engages with a patient who is forthcoming about substance use.

“If I see an 18-year-old, I tell them to abstain,” he said. “I tell them if they are ever going to use it, to use it after 26.”

Clinicians also should understand dosages to provide the optimal guidance to their patients who use cannabis.

“People often have no idea how much cannabis they are taking,” especially when using vape cartridges, Dr. Singh said. “If you don’t know, you can’t tell patients about the harms – and if you tell them the wrong information, they will write you off.”

Dr. Singh said he advises his patients to avoid using cannabis vapes or dabbing pens. Both can contain much higher levels of THC than dried flower or edible forms of the drug. He also says patients should stick with low concentrations and use products that contain CBD, which some studies have shown has a protective effect against CIP, although other studies have found that CBD can induce anxiety.

He also tells patients to buy from legal dispensaries and to avoid buying street products that may have methamphetamine or fentanyl mixed in.

Despite the risks, Dr. Singh said legalization can reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use and may prompt patients to be honest with their clinicians. Dr. Singh recalled a 28-year-old patient who was using cannabis to alleviate her arthritic pain. She also was taking a transplant medication, which carried potential side effects of delirium, generalized anxiety disorder, and hallucinosis. After doubling her THC dose, the patient experienced severe anxiety and paranoia.

Dr. Singh’s patient paid him a visit and asked for help. Dr. Singh told her to reduce the dose and to keep track of how she felt. If she continued to feel anxious and paranoid, he recommended that she switch to CBD instead.

“I think education and knowledge is liberating,” Dr. Singh said. “Legalization and frank conversations help people understand how to use a product – and right now, I think that’s lacking.”
 

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

The youngest patient with cannabis-induced psychosis (CIP) whom Karen Randall, DO, has treated was a 7-year-old boy. She remembers the screaming, the yelling, the uncontrollable rage.

Dr. Randall is an emergency medicine physician at Southern Colorado Emergency Medicine Associates, a group practice in Pueblo, Colo. She treats youth for cannabis-related medical problems in the emergency department an average of two or three times per shift, she said.

Colorado legalized the recreational use of cannabis for adults older than 21 in 2012. Since then, Dr. Randall said, she has noticed an uptick in cannabis use among youth, as well as an increase in CIP, a syndrome that can be indistinguishable from other psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia in the emergency department. But the two conditions require different approaches to care.

“You can’t differentiate unless you know the patient,” Dr. Randall said in an interview.

In 2019, 37% of high school students in the United States reported ever using marijuana, and 22% reported use in the past 30 days. Rates remained steady in 2020 following increases in 2018 and 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC also found that 8% of 8th graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders reported vaping marijuana in the past year.

Clinicians in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized say they have noticed an increase in young patients with psychiatric problems – especially after consumption of cannabis products in high doses. But CIP can be tricky to distinguish from psychoses of other causes, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which often begin to present in adolescence.
 

How to differentiate

CIP is characterized by delusions and hallucinations and sometimes anxiety, disorganized thoughts, paranoia, dissociation, and changes in mood and behavior. Symptoms typically last for a couple hours and do not require specific treatment, although they can persist, depending on a patient’s tolerance and the dose of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) they have consumed. Research suggests that the higher the dose and concentration of the drug consumed, the more likely a person will develop symptoms of psychosis.

Diagnosis requires gathering information on previous bipolar disorder or schizophrenia diagnosis, prescriptions for mental illness indications, whether there is a family history of mental illness, and whether the patient recently started using marijuana. In some cases, marijuana use might exacerbate or unmask mental illness.

If symptoms of CIP resolve, and usually they do, clinicians can recommend that patients abstain from cannabis going forward, and psychosis would not need further treatment, according to Divya Singh, MD, a psychiatrist at Banner Behavioral Health Hospital in Scottsdale, Ariz., where recreational cannabis became legal in 2020.

“When I have limited information, especially in the first couple of days, I err on the side of safety,” Dr. Singh said.

Psychosis is the combination of symptoms, including delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized behavior, but it is not a disorder in itself. Rather, it is the primary symptom of schizophrenia and other chronic psychiatric illnesses.

Schizophrenia can be diagnosed only after a patient presents with signs of disturbance for at least 6 months, according to guidelines in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Dr. Singh said a diagnosis of schizophrenia cannot be made in a one-off interaction.

If the patient is younger than 24 years and has no family history of mental illness, a full recovery is likely if the patient abstains from marijuana, he said. But if the patient does have a family history, “the chances of them having a full-blown mental illness is very high,” Dr. Singh said.

If a patient reports that he or she has recently started using marijuana and was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, Dr. Singh said he generally prescribes medications such as lithium or quetiapine and refers the patient to services such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. He also advises against continuing use of cannabis.

“Cannabis can result in people requiring a higher dose of medication than they took before,” Dr. Singh said. “If they were stable on 600 mg of lithium before, they might need more and may never be able to lower the dose in some cases, even after the acute episode.”
 

The science of cannabis

As of March 2023, 21 states and the District of Columbia permit the recreational use of marijuana, according to the Congressional Research Service. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia allow medicinal use of marijuana, and 10 states allow “limited access to medical cannabis,” defined as low-THC cannabis or cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. It creates a high feeling after binding with receptors in the brain that control pain and mood. CBD is another chemical found in cannabis, but it does not create a high.

Some research suggests cannabinoids may help reduce anxiety, reduce inflammation, relieve pain, control nausea, reduce cancer cells, slow the growth of tumor cells, relax tight muscles, and stimulate appetite.

The drug also carries risks, according to Mayo Clinic. Use of marijuana is linked to mental health problems in teens and adults, such as depression, social anxiety, and temporary psychosis, and long-lasting mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.

In the worst cases, CIP can persist for weeks or months – long after a negative drug test – and sometimes does not subside at all, according to Ken Finn, MD, president and founder of Springs Rehabilitation, PC, a pain medicine practice in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Dr. Finn, the co–vice president of the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis, which opposes making the drug more accessible, said educating health care providers is an urgent need.

Studies are mixed on whether the legalization of cannabis has led to more cases of CIP.

A 2021 study found that experiences of psychosis among users of cannabis jumped 2.5-fold between 2001 and 2013. But a study published earlier this year of more than 63 million medical claims from 2003 to 2017 found no statistically significant difference in rates of psychosis-related diagnoses or prescribed antipsychotics in states that have legalized medical or recreational cannabis compared with states where cannabis is still illegal. However, a secondary analysis did find that rates of psychosis-related diagnoses increased significantly among men, people aged 55-64 years, and Asian adults in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized.

Complicating matters, researchers say, is the question of causality. Cannabis may exacerbate or trigger psychosis, but people with an underlying psychological illness may also be more likely to use cannabis.

Dr. Finn said clinicians in Colorado and other states with legalization laws are seeing more patients with CIP. As more states consider legalizing recreational marijuana, he expects the data will reflect what doctors experience on the ground.

Cannabis-induced “psychosis is complicated and likely underdiagnosed,” Dr. Finn said.
 

Talking to teens

Clinicians outside the emergency department can play a role in aiding young people at risk for CIP. Primary care physicians, for instance, might explain to young patients that the brain only becomes fully developed at roughly age 26, after which the long-term health consequences of using cannabis become less likely. According to the CDC, using cannabis before age 18 can change how the brain builds connections and can impair attention, memory, and learning.

Dr. Singh takes a harm reduction approach when he engages with a patient who is forthcoming about substance use.

“If I see an 18-year-old, I tell them to abstain,” he said. “I tell them if they are ever going to use it, to use it after 26.”

Clinicians also should understand dosages to provide the optimal guidance to their patients who use cannabis.

“People often have no idea how much cannabis they are taking,” especially when using vape cartridges, Dr. Singh said. “If you don’t know, you can’t tell patients about the harms – and if you tell them the wrong information, they will write you off.”

Dr. Singh said he advises his patients to avoid using cannabis vapes or dabbing pens. Both can contain much higher levels of THC than dried flower or edible forms of the drug. He also says patients should stick with low concentrations and use products that contain CBD, which some studies have shown has a protective effect against CIP, although other studies have found that CBD can induce anxiety.

He also tells patients to buy from legal dispensaries and to avoid buying street products that may have methamphetamine or fentanyl mixed in.

Despite the risks, Dr. Singh said legalization can reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use and may prompt patients to be honest with their clinicians. Dr. Singh recalled a 28-year-old patient who was using cannabis to alleviate her arthritic pain. She also was taking a transplant medication, which carried potential side effects of delirium, generalized anxiety disorder, and hallucinosis. After doubling her THC dose, the patient experienced severe anxiety and paranoia.

Dr. Singh’s patient paid him a visit and asked for help. Dr. Singh told her to reduce the dose and to keep track of how she felt. If she continued to feel anxious and paranoid, he recommended that she switch to CBD instead.

“I think education and knowledge is liberating,” Dr. Singh said. “Legalization and frank conversations help people understand how to use a product – and right now, I think that’s lacking.”
 

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

The antipsychotic clozapine appears to guard against suicide for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, results of an autopsy study suggest.

Investigators reviewed over 53,000 autopsy records, including over 600 from individuals whose autopsies revealed the presence of the antipsychotics clozapine or olanzapine, and found that those who took clozapine were significantly less likely to have died by suicide, compared with their counterparts who were taking olanzapine.

“Clozapine is an important and effective antisuicide medicine and should be strongly considered for treatment-resistant psychotic disorders, especially when the patient may be at risk for suicide,” study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Underutilized medication

Clozapine is the only medication indicated for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is considered “the most efficacious antipsychotic,” the investigators note. Unfortunately, it has “long been underutilized” for several reasons, including prescriber hesitancy and concerns about side effects.

The authors note that its mechanism of action and the basis for superior efficacy are “still poorly understood” but “may extend beyond neurotransmitter receptor binding.”

Importantly, it may have a beneficial impact on domains other than positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including suicidality. Several studies have shown that it’s beneficial in this regard, but it is “unclear whether the unique antisuicidal properties of clozapine are related to better symptom control ... or to the closer monitoring and follow-up mandated for clozapine use,” they note.

A previous trial, the International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT), demonstrated that clozapine is associated with a greater reduction in suicidality, and the findings “led to an FDA indication for clozapine in reducing the risk of recurrent suicidal behavior.”

However, the authors note, “in the severely ill populations in these studies, it is difficult to be certain about patients’ adherence to prescribed clozapine.”

“Other studies, such as InterSePT, have shown some evidence of clozapine working to reduce suicide-related outcomes, such as attempts or suicidal ideation, but few have been sufficiently powered to measure an effect on actual suicide deaths,” said Dr. Nestadt.

‘Untapped resource’

Of 53,133 decedents, olanzapine or clozapine was detected in the blood of 621 persons (n = 571 and n = 50, respectively).

There were no significant differences in age, sex, race, or urban residence between the decedents who were treated with olanzapine and those who received clozapine.

The odds of a death by suicide in those treated with clozapine were less than half of the odds among decedents who had been treated with olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P = .011).

In sensitivity analyses, the investigators reanalyzed the data to compare clozapine with other antipsychotics, including chlorpromazine, thioridazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine, and the results were similar. The odds of suicide (compared with accident) in those taking clozapine were much lower than in those taking any other tested antipsychotics individually or in combination (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73; P = .002).

Dr. Nestadt outlined several hypotheses regarding the mechanism of clozapine’s antisuicidal properties.

“Most theories stem from the differences in its receptor affinity, compared [with] the other neuroleptics,” he said. “In addition to the more typical dopaminergic blockade seen in neuroleptics, clozapine enhances serotonin release and greatly increases peripheral norepinephrine.”

This has been shown to “grant clozapine a greater antidepressant effect than other neuroleptics while also potentially decreasing aggression and impulsivity, which are both strongly associated with suicide risk,” he said.

Clozapine may also “work to reduce the inflammation-triggered activation of the kynurenine pathway, which otherwise contributes to serotonin depletion,” he added.

He noted that some studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia die by suicide, “so addressing this risk is paramount,” and that clozapine can play an important role in this.

The authors note that the findings “also highlight the utility of state-wide autopsy records, an untapped resource for investigating the potential protective effect of psychiatric medications on suicide at a population level.

“Importantly, we can be certain that this was not an issue of nonadherence to treatment in either group, which is a common issue in the use of these drugs because, instead of prescription records or self-report, we used actual measurements of drug presence in decedents’ blood at death,” said Dr. Nestadt.
 

‘Strongly suggestive’ data

Commenting on the study, Maria Oquendo, MD, PhD, Ruth Meltzer Professor and chair of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said most work on antisuicidal psychopharmacologic approaches “focuses on suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, due to the rarity of suicide death, even in high-risk populations.”

“Showing that clozapine may decrease risk for the most dreaded outcome of schizophrenia – suicide – is critically important,” said Dr. Oquendo, past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Nevertheless, some questions remain, said Dr. Oquendo, who was not involved with the study. “Comparison of suicides to only accidental deaths has limitations. Many individuals who die due to accidents, like many suicides, are not similar to the general population,” she added.

However, she acknowledged, the data are strongly suggestive that clozapine protects against suicide.

“While not definitive, ideally these findings will stimulate changes in prescribing practices which may be lifesaving both literally – in terms of preventing suicides – and figuratively, given the drug’s effect on symptoms that impact quality of life and functioning,” said Dr. Oquendo.

The study received no funding or support. Dr. Nestadt is supported by the American Foundation for Suicide prevention and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Oquendo receives royalties from the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene for the commercial use of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. She serves as an advisor to Alkermes, Mind Medicine, Sage Therapeutics, St. George’s University, and Fundacion Jimenez Diaz. Her family owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The antipsychotic clozapine appears to guard against suicide for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, results of an autopsy study suggest.

Investigators reviewed over 53,000 autopsy records, including over 600 from individuals whose autopsies revealed the presence of the antipsychotics clozapine or olanzapine, and found that those who took clozapine were significantly less likely to have died by suicide, compared with their counterparts who were taking olanzapine.

“Clozapine is an important and effective antisuicide medicine and should be strongly considered for treatment-resistant psychotic disorders, especially when the patient may be at risk for suicide,” study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Underutilized medication

Clozapine is the only medication indicated for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is considered “the most efficacious antipsychotic,” the investigators note. Unfortunately, it has “long been underutilized” for several reasons, including prescriber hesitancy and concerns about side effects.

The authors note that its mechanism of action and the basis for superior efficacy are “still poorly understood” but “may extend beyond neurotransmitter receptor binding.”

Importantly, it may have a beneficial impact on domains other than positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including suicidality. Several studies have shown that it’s beneficial in this regard, but it is “unclear whether the unique antisuicidal properties of clozapine are related to better symptom control ... or to the closer monitoring and follow-up mandated for clozapine use,” they note.

A previous trial, the International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT), demonstrated that clozapine is associated with a greater reduction in suicidality, and the findings “led to an FDA indication for clozapine in reducing the risk of recurrent suicidal behavior.”

However, the authors note, “in the severely ill populations in these studies, it is difficult to be certain about patients’ adherence to prescribed clozapine.”

“Other studies, such as InterSePT, have shown some evidence of clozapine working to reduce suicide-related outcomes, such as attempts or suicidal ideation, but few have been sufficiently powered to measure an effect on actual suicide deaths,” said Dr. Nestadt.

‘Untapped resource’

Of 53,133 decedents, olanzapine or clozapine was detected in the blood of 621 persons (n = 571 and n = 50, respectively).

There were no significant differences in age, sex, race, or urban residence between the decedents who were treated with olanzapine and those who received clozapine.

The odds of a death by suicide in those treated with clozapine were less than half of the odds among decedents who had been treated with olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P = .011).

In sensitivity analyses, the investigators reanalyzed the data to compare clozapine with other antipsychotics, including chlorpromazine, thioridazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine, and the results were similar. The odds of suicide (compared with accident) in those taking clozapine were much lower than in those taking any other tested antipsychotics individually or in combination (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73; P = .002).

Dr. Nestadt outlined several hypotheses regarding the mechanism of clozapine’s antisuicidal properties.

“Most theories stem from the differences in its receptor affinity, compared [with] the other neuroleptics,” he said. “In addition to the more typical dopaminergic blockade seen in neuroleptics, clozapine enhances serotonin release and greatly increases peripheral norepinephrine.”

This has been shown to “grant clozapine a greater antidepressant effect than other neuroleptics while also potentially decreasing aggression and impulsivity, which are both strongly associated with suicide risk,” he said.

Clozapine may also “work to reduce the inflammation-triggered activation of the kynurenine pathway, which otherwise contributes to serotonin depletion,” he added.

He noted that some studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia die by suicide, “so addressing this risk is paramount,” and that clozapine can play an important role in this.

The authors note that the findings “also highlight the utility of state-wide autopsy records, an untapped resource for investigating the potential protective effect of psychiatric medications on suicide at a population level.

“Importantly, we can be certain that this was not an issue of nonadherence to treatment in either group, which is a common issue in the use of these drugs because, instead of prescription records or self-report, we used actual measurements of drug presence in decedents’ blood at death,” said Dr. Nestadt.
 

‘Strongly suggestive’ data

Commenting on the study, Maria Oquendo, MD, PhD, Ruth Meltzer Professor and chair of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said most work on antisuicidal psychopharmacologic approaches “focuses on suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, due to the rarity of suicide death, even in high-risk populations.”

“Showing that clozapine may decrease risk for the most dreaded outcome of schizophrenia – suicide – is critically important,” said Dr. Oquendo, past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Nevertheless, some questions remain, said Dr. Oquendo, who was not involved with the study. “Comparison of suicides to only accidental deaths has limitations. Many individuals who die due to accidents, like many suicides, are not similar to the general population,” she added.

However, she acknowledged, the data are strongly suggestive that clozapine protects against suicide.

“While not definitive, ideally these findings will stimulate changes in prescribing practices which may be lifesaving both literally – in terms of preventing suicides – and figuratively, given the drug’s effect on symptoms that impact quality of life and functioning,” said Dr. Oquendo.

The study received no funding or support. Dr. Nestadt is supported by the American Foundation for Suicide prevention and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Oquendo receives royalties from the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene for the commercial use of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. She serves as an advisor to Alkermes, Mind Medicine, Sage Therapeutics, St. George’s University, and Fundacion Jimenez Diaz. Her family owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The antipsychotic clozapine appears to guard against suicide for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, results of an autopsy study suggest.

Investigators reviewed over 53,000 autopsy records, including over 600 from individuals whose autopsies revealed the presence of the antipsychotics clozapine or olanzapine, and found that those who took clozapine were significantly less likely to have died by suicide, compared with their counterparts who were taking olanzapine.

“Clozapine is an important and effective antisuicide medicine and should be strongly considered for treatment-resistant psychotic disorders, especially when the patient may be at risk for suicide,” study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Underutilized medication

Clozapine is the only medication indicated for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is considered “the most efficacious antipsychotic,” the investigators note. Unfortunately, it has “long been underutilized” for several reasons, including prescriber hesitancy and concerns about side effects.

The authors note that its mechanism of action and the basis for superior efficacy are “still poorly understood” but “may extend beyond neurotransmitter receptor binding.”

Importantly, it may have a beneficial impact on domains other than positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including suicidality. Several studies have shown that it’s beneficial in this regard, but it is “unclear whether the unique antisuicidal properties of clozapine are related to better symptom control ... or to the closer monitoring and follow-up mandated for clozapine use,” they note.

A previous trial, the International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT), demonstrated that clozapine is associated with a greater reduction in suicidality, and the findings “led to an FDA indication for clozapine in reducing the risk of recurrent suicidal behavior.”

However, the authors note, “in the severely ill populations in these studies, it is difficult to be certain about patients’ adherence to prescribed clozapine.”

“Other studies, such as InterSePT, have shown some evidence of clozapine working to reduce suicide-related outcomes, such as attempts or suicidal ideation, but few have been sufficiently powered to measure an effect on actual suicide deaths,” said Dr. Nestadt.

‘Untapped resource’

Of 53,133 decedents, olanzapine or clozapine was detected in the blood of 621 persons (n = 571 and n = 50, respectively).

There were no significant differences in age, sex, race, or urban residence between the decedents who were treated with olanzapine and those who received clozapine.

The odds of a death by suicide in those treated with clozapine were less than half of the odds among decedents who had been treated with olanzapine (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P = .011).

In sensitivity analyses, the investigators reanalyzed the data to compare clozapine with other antipsychotics, including chlorpromazine, thioridazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine, and the results were similar. The odds of suicide (compared with accident) in those taking clozapine were much lower than in those taking any other tested antipsychotics individually or in combination (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73; P = .002).

Dr. Nestadt outlined several hypotheses regarding the mechanism of clozapine’s antisuicidal properties.

“Most theories stem from the differences in its receptor affinity, compared [with] the other neuroleptics,” he said. “In addition to the more typical dopaminergic blockade seen in neuroleptics, clozapine enhances serotonin release and greatly increases peripheral norepinephrine.”

This has been shown to “grant clozapine a greater antidepressant effect than other neuroleptics while also potentially decreasing aggression and impulsivity, which are both strongly associated with suicide risk,” he said.

Clozapine may also “work to reduce the inflammation-triggered activation of the kynurenine pathway, which otherwise contributes to serotonin depletion,” he added.

He noted that some studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia die by suicide, “so addressing this risk is paramount,” and that clozapine can play an important role in this.

The authors note that the findings “also highlight the utility of state-wide autopsy records, an untapped resource for investigating the potential protective effect of psychiatric medications on suicide at a population level.

“Importantly, we can be certain that this was not an issue of nonadherence to treatment in either group, which is a common issue in the use of these drugs because, instead of prescription records or self-report, we used actual measurements of drug presence in decedents’ blood at death,” said Dr. Nestadt.
 

‘Strongly suggestive’ data

Commenting on the study, Maria Oquendo, MD, PhD, Ruth Meltzer Professor and chair of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said most work on antisuicidal psychopharmacologic approaches “focuses on suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, due to the rarity of suicide death, even in high-risk populations.”

“Showing that clozapine may decrease risk for the most dreaded outcome of schizophrenia – suicide – is critically important,” said Dr. Oquendo, past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Nevertheless, some questions remain, said Dr. Oquendo, who was not involved with the study. “Comparison of suicides to only accidental deaths has limitations. Many individuals who die due to accidents, like many suicides, are not similar to the general population,” she added.

However, she acknowledged, the data are strongly suggestive that clozapine protects against suicide.

“While not definitive, ideally these findings will stimulate changes in prescribing practices which may be lifesaving both literally – in terms of preventing suicides – and figuratively, given the drug’s effect on symptoms that impact quality of life and functioning,” said Dr. Oquendo.

The study received no funding or support. Dr. Nestadt is supported by the American Foundation for Suicide prevention and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Oquendo receives royalties from the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene for the commercial use of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. She serves as an advisor to Alkermes, Mind Medicine, Sage Therapeutics, St. George’s University, and Fundacion Jimenez Diaz. Her family owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: Hello. I’m happy to talk today to Dr. Indu Subramanian, clinical professor at University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education and Clinical Center in Los Angeles. I am a neurologist in Saratoga Springs, New York, and we will be talking today about Indu’s new paper on childhood trauma and Parkinson’s disease. Welcome and thanks for taking the time.

Indu Subramanian, MD: Thank you so much for letting us highlight this important topic.

Dr. LaFaver: There are many papers published every month on Parkinson’s disease, but this topic stands out because it’s not a thing that has been commonly looked at. What gave you the idea to study this?
 

Neurology behind other specialties

Dr. Subramanian: Kathrin, you and I have been looking at things that can inform us about our patients – the person who’s standing in front of us when they come in and we’re giving them this diagnosis. I think that so much of what we’ve done [in the past] is a cookie cutter approach to giving everybody the standard treatment. [We’ve been assuming that] It doesn’t matter if they’re a man or woman. It doesn’t matter if they’re a veteran. It doesn’t matter if they may be from a minoritized population.

Customization is so key, and we’re realizing that we have missed the boat often through the pandemic and in health care in general.

We’ve also been interested in approaches that are outside the box, right? We have this integrative medicine and lifestyle medicine background. I’ve been going to those meetings and really been struck by the mounting evidence on the importance of things like early adverse childhood events (ACEs), what zip code you live in, what your pollution index is, and how these things can affect people through their life and their health.

I think that it is high time neurologists pay attention to this. There’s been mounting evidence throughout many disease states, various types of cancers, and mental health. Cardiology is much more advanced, but we haven’t had much data in neurology. In fact, when we went to write this paper, there were just one or two papers that were looking at multiple sclerosis or general neurologic issues, but really nothing in Parkinson’s disease.

We know that Parkinson’s disease is not only a motor disease that affects mental health, but that it also affects nonmotor issues. Childhood adversity may affect how people progress or how quickly they may get a disease, and we were interested in how it may manifest in a disease like Parkinson’s disease.

That was the framework going to meetings. As we wrote this paper and were in various editing stages, there was a beautiful paper that came out by Nadine Burke Harris and team that really was a call to action for neurologists and caring about trauma.

Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. It’s really an underrecognized issue. With my own background, being very interested in functional movement disorders, psychosomatic disorders, and so on, it becomes much more evident how common a trauma background is, not only for people we were traditionally asking about.

Why don’t you summarize your findings for us?
 

Adverse childhood events

Dr. Subramanian: This is a web-based survey, so obviously, these are patient self-reports of their disease. We have a large cohort of people that we’ve been following over 7 years. I’m looking at modifiable variables and what really impacts Parkinson’s disease. Some of our previous papers have looked at diet, exercise, and loneliness. This is the same cohort.

We ended up putting the ACEs questionnaire, which is 10 questions looking at whether you were exposed to certain things in your household below the age of 18. This is a relatively standard questionnaire that’s administered one time, and you get a score out of 10. This is something that has been pushed, at least in the state of California, as something that we should be checking more in all people coming in.

We introduced the survey, and we didn’t force everyone to take it. Unfortunately, there was 20% or so of our patients who chose not to answer these questions. One has to ask, who are those people that didn’t answer the questions? Are they the ones that may have had trauma and these questions were triggering? It was a gap. We didn’t add extra questions to explore why people didn’t answer those questions.

We have to also put this in context. We have a patient population that’s largely quite affluent, who are able to access web-based surveys through their computer, and largely Caucasian; there are not many minoritized populations in our cohort. We want to do better with that. We actually were able to gather a decent number of women. We represent women quite well in our survey. I think that’s because of this online approach and some of the things that we’re studying.

In our survey, we broke it down into people who had no ACEs, one to three ACEs, or four or more ACEs. This is a standard way to break down ACEs so that we’re able to categorize what to do with these patient populations.

What we saw – and it’s preliminary evidence – is that people who had higher ACE scores seemed to have more symptom severity when we controlled for things like years since diagnosis, age, and gender. They also seem to have a worse quality of life. There was some indication that there were more nonmotor issues in those populations, as you might expect, such as anxiety, depression, and things that presumably ACEs can affect separately.

There are some confounders, but I think we really want to use this as the first piece of evidence to hopefully pave the way for caring about trauma in Parkinson’s disease moving forward.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you so much for that summary. You already mentioned the main methodology you used.

What is the next step for you? How do you see these findings informing our clinical care? Do you have suggestions for all of the neurologists listening in this regard?


 

PD not yet considered ACE-related

Dr. Subramanian: Dr. Burke Harris was the former surgeon general in California. She’s a woman of color and a brilliant speaker, and she had worked in inner cities, I think in San Francisco, with pediatric populations, seeing these effects of adversity in that time frame.

You see this population at risk, and then you’re following this cohort, which we knew from the Kaiser cohort determines earlier morbidity and mortality across a number of disease states. We’re seeing things like more heart attacks, more diabetes, and all kinds of things in these populations. This is not new news; we just have not been focusing on this.

In her paper, this call to action, they had talked about some ACE-related conditions that currently do not include Parkinson’s disease. There are three ACE-related neurologic conditions that people should be aware of. One is in the headache/pain universe. Another is in the stroke universe, and that’s understandable, given cardiovascular risk factors . Then the third is in this dementia risk category. I think Parkinson’s disease, as we know, can be associated with dementia. A large percentage of our patients get dementia, but we don’t have Parkinson’s disease called out in this framework.

What people are talking about is if you have no ACEs or are in this middle category of one to three ACEs and you don’t have an ACE-related diagnosis – which Parkinson’s disease is not currently – we just give some basic counseling about the importance of lifestyle. I think we would love to see that anyway. They’re talking about things like exercise, diet, sleep, social connection, getting out in nature, things like that, so just general counseling on the importance of that.

Then if you’re in this higher-risk category, and so with these ACE-related neurologic conditions, including dementia, headache, and stroke, if you had this middle range of one to three ACEs, they’re getting additional resources. Some of them may be referred for social work help or mental health support and things like that.

I’d really love to see that happening in Parkinson’s disease, because I think we have so many needs in our population. I’m always hoping to advocate for more mental health needs that are scarce and resources in the social support realm because I believe that social connection and social support is a huge buffer for this trauma.

ACEs are just one type of trauma. I take care of veterans in the Veterans [Affairs Department]. We have some information now coming out about posttraumatic stress disorder, predisposing to certain things in Parkinson’s disease, possibly head injury, and things like that. I think we have populations at risk that we can hopefully screen at intake, and I’m really pushing for that.

Maybe it’s not the neurologist that does this intake. It might be someone else on the team that can spend some time doing these questionnaires and understand if your patient has a high ACE score. Unless you ask, many patients don’t necessarily come forward to talk about this. I really am pushing for trying to screen and trying to advocate for more research in this area so that we can classify Parkinson’s disease as an ACE-related condition and thus give more resources from the mental health world, and also the social support world, to our patients.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you. There are many important points, and I think it’s a very important thing to recognize that it may not be only trauma in childhood but also throughout life, as you said, and might really influence nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in particular, including anxiety and pain, which are often difficult to treat.

I think there’s much more to do in research, advocacy, and education. We’re going to educate patients about this, and also educate other neurologists and providers. I think you mentioned that trauma-informed care is getting its spotlight in primary care and other specialties. I think we have catching up to do in neurology, and I think this is a really important work toward that goal.

Thank you so much for your work and for taking the time to share your thoughts. I hope to talk to you again soon.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Kathrin.
 

Dr. LaFaver has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Subramanian disclosed ties with Acorda Therapeutics.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: Hello. I’m happy to talk today to Dr. Indu Subramanian, clinical professor at University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education and Clinical Center in Los Angeles. I am a neurologist in Saratoga Springs, New York, and we will be talking today about Indu’s new paper on childhood trauma and Parkinson’s disease. Welcome and thanks for taking the time.

Indu Subramanian, MD: Thank you so much for letting us highlight this important topic.

Dr. LaFaver: There are many papers published every month on Parkinson’s disease, but this topic stands out because it’s not a thing that has been commonly looked at. What gave you the idea to study this?
 

Neurology behind other specialties

Dr. Subramanian: Kathrin, you and I have been looking at things that can inform us about our patients – the person who’s standing in front of us when they come in and we’re giving them this diagnosis. I think that so much of what we’ve done [in the past] is a cookie cutter approach to giving everybody the standard treatment. [We’ve been assuming that] It doesn’t matter if they’re a man or woman. It doesn’t matter if they’re a veteran. It doesn’t matter if they may be from a minoritized population.

Customization is so key, and we’re realizing that we have missed the boat often through the pandemic and in health care in general.

We’ve also been interested in approaches that are outside the box, right? We have this integrative medicine and lifestyle medicine background. I’ve been going to those meetings and really been struck by the mounting evidence on the importance of things like early adverse childhood events (ACEs), what zip code you live in, what your pollution index is, and how these things can affect people through their life and their health.

I think that it is high time neurologists pay attention to this. There’s been mounting evidence throughout many disease states, various types of cancers, and mental health. Cardiology is much more advanced, but we haven’t had much data in neurology. In fact, when we went to write this paper, there were just one or two papers that were looking at multiple sclerosis or general neurologic issues, but really nothing in Parkinson’s disease.

We know that Parkinson’s disease is not only a motor disease that affects mental health, but that it also affects nonmotor issues. Childhood adversity may affect how people progress or how quickly they may get a disease, and we were interested in how it may manifest in a disease like Parkinson’s disease.

That was the framework going to meetings. As we wrote this paper and were in various editing stages, there was a beautiful paper that came out by Nadine Burke Harris and team that really was a call to action for neurologists and caring about trauma.

Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. It’s really an underrecognized issue. With my own background, being very interested in functional movement disorders, psychosomatic disorders, and so on, it becomes much more evident how common a trauma background is, not only for people we were traditionally asking about.

Why don’t you summarize your findings for us?
 

Adverse childhood events

Dr. Subramanian: This is a web-based survey, so obviously, these are patient self-reports of their disease. We have a large cohort of people that we’ve been following over 7 years. I’m looking at modifiable variables and what really impacts Parkinson’s disease. Some of our previous papers have looked at diet, exercise, and loneliness. This is the same cohort.

We ended up putting the ACEs questionnaire, which is 10 questions looking at whether you were exposed to certain things in your household below the age of 18. This is a relatively standard questionnaire that’s administered one time, and you get a score out of 10. This is something that has been pushed, at least in the state of California, as something that we should be checking more in all people coming in.

We introduced the survey, and we didn’t force everyone to take it. Unfortunately, there was 20% or so of our patients who chose not to answer these questions. One has to ask, who are those people that didn’t answer the questions? Are they the ones that may have had trauma and these questions were triggering? It was a gap. We didn’t add extra questions to explore why people didn’t answer those questions.

We have to also put this in context. We have a patient population that’s largely quite affluent, who are able to access web-based surveys through their computer, and largely Caucasian; there are not many minoritized populations in our cohort. We want to do better with that. We actually were able to gather a decent number of women. We represent women quite well in our survey. I think that’s because of this online approach and some of the things that we’re studying.

In our survey, we broke it down into people who had no ACEs, one to three ACEs, or four or more ACEs. This is a standard way to break down ACEs so that we’re able to categorize what to do with these patient populations.

What we saw – and it’s preliminary evidence – is that people who had higher ACE scores seemed to have more symptom severity when we controlled for things like years since diagnosis, age, and gender. They also seem to have a worse quality of life. There was some indication that there were more nonmotor issues in those populations, as you might expect, such as anxiety, depression, and things that presumably ACEs can affect separately.

There are some confounders, but I think we really want to use this as the first piece of evidence to hopefully pave the way for caring about trauma in Parkinson’s disease moving forward.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you so much for that summary. You already mentioned the main methodology you used.

What is the next step for you? How do you see these findings informing our clinical care? Do you have suggestions for all of the neurologists listening in this regard?


 

PD not yet considered ACE-related

Dr. Subramanian: Dr. Burke Harris was the former surgeon general in California. She’s a woman of color and a brilliant speaker, and she had worked in inner cities, I think in San Francisco, with pediatric populations, seeing these effects of adversity in that time frame.

You see this population at risk, and then you’re following this cohort, which we knew from the Kaiser cohort determines earlier morbidity and mortality across a number of disease states. We’re seeing things like more heart attacks, more diabetes, and all kinds of things in these populations. This is not new news; we just have not been focusing on this.

In her paper, this call to action, they had talked about some ACE-related conditions that currently do not include Parkinson’s disease. There are three ACE-related neurologic conditions that people should be aware of. One is in the headache/pain universe. Another is in the stroke universe, and that’s understandable, given cardiovascular risk factors . Then the third is in this dementia risk category. I think Parkinson’s disease, as we know, can be associated with dementia. A large percentage of our patients get dementia, but we don’t have Parkinson’s disease called out in this framework.

What people are talking about is if you have no ACEs or are in this middle category of one to three ACEs and you don’t have an ACE-related diagnosis – which Parkinson’s disease is not currently – we just give some basic counseling about the importance of lifestyle. I think we would love to see that anyway. They’re talking about things like exercise, diet, sleep, social connection, getting out in nature, things like that, so just general counseling on the importance of that.

Then if you’re in this higher-risk category, and so with these ACE-related neurologic conditions, including dementia, headache, and stroke, if you had this middle range of one to three ACEs, they’re getting additional resources. Some of them may be referred for social work help or mental health support and things like that.

I’d really love to see that happening in Parkinson’s disease, because I think we have so many needs in our population. I’m always hoping to advocate for more mental health needs that are scarce and resources in the social support realm because I believe that social connection and social support is a huge buffer for this trauma.

ACEs are just one type of trauma. I take care of veterans in the Veterans [Affairs Department]. We have some information now coming out about posttraumatic stress disorder, predisposing to certain things in Parkinson’s disease, possibly head injury, and things like that. I think we have populations at risk that we can hopefully screen at intake, and I’m really pushing for that.

Maybe it’s not the neurologist that does this intake. It might be someone else on the team that can spend some time doing these questionnaires and understand if your patient has a high ACE score. Unless you ask, many patients don’t necessarily come forward to talk about this. I really am pushing for trying to screen and trying to advocate for more research in this area so that we can classify Parkinson’s disease as an ACE-related condition and thus give more resources from the mental health world, and also the social support world, to our patients.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you. There are many important points, and I think it’s a very important thing to recognize that it may not be only trauma in childhood but also throughout life, as you said, and might really influence nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in particular, including anxiety and pain, which are often difficult to treat.

I think there’s much more to do in research, advocacy, and education. We’re going to educate patients about this, and also educate other neurologists and providers. I think you mentioned that trauma-informed care is getting its spotlight in primary care and other specialties. I think we have catching up to do in neurology, and I think this is a really important work toward that goal.

Thank you so much for your work and for taking the time to share your thoughts. I hope to talk to you again soon.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Kathrin.
 

Dr. LaFaver has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Subramanian disclosed ties with Acorda Therapeutics.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: Hello. I’m happy to talk today to Dr. Indu Subramanian, clinical professor at University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education and Clinical Center in Los Angeles. I am a neurologist in Saratoga Springs, New York, and we will be talking today about Indu’s new paper on childhood trauma and Parkinson’s disease. Welcome and thanks for taking the time.

Indu Subramanian, MD: Thank you so much for letting us highlight this important topic.

Dr. LaFaver: There are many papers published every month on Parkinson’s disease, but this topic stands out because it’s not a thing that has been commonly looked at. What gave you the idea to study this?
 

Neurology behind other specialties

Dr. Subramanian: Kathrin, you and I have been looking at things that can inform us about our patients – the person who’s standing in front of us when they come in and we’re giving them this diagnosis. I think that so much of what we’ve done [in the past] is a cookie cutter approach to giving everybody the standard treatment. [We’ve been assuming that] It doesn’t matter if they’re a man or woman. It doesn’t matter if they’re a veteran. It doesn’t matter if they may be from a minoritized population.

Customization is so key, and we’re realizing that we have missed the boat often through the pandemic and in health care in general.

We’ve also been interested in approaches that are outside the box, right? We have this integrative medicine and lifestyle medicine background. I’ve been going to those meetings and really been struck by the mounting evidence on the importance of things like early adverse childhood events (ACEs), what zip code you live in, what your pollution index is, and how these things can affect people through their life and their health.

I think that it is high time neurologists pay attention to this. There’s been mounting evidence throughout many disease states, various types of cancers, and mental health. Cardiology is much more advanced, but we haven’t had much data in neurology. In fact, when we went to write this paper, there were just one or two papers that were looking at multiple sclerosis or general neurologic issues, but really nothing in Parkinson’s disease.

We know that Parkinson’s disease is not only a motor disease that affects mental health, but that it also affects nonmotor issues. Childhood adversity may affect how people progress or how quickly they may get a disease, and we were interested in how it may manifest in a disease like Parkinson’s disease.

That was the framework going to meetings. As we wrote this paper and were in various editing stages, there was a beautiful paper that came out by Nadine Burke Harris and team that really was a call to action for neurologists and caring about trauma.

Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. It’s really an underrecognized issue. With my own background, being very interested in functional movement disorders, psychosomatic disorders, and so on, it becomes much more evident how common a trauma background is, not only for people we were traditionally asking about.

Why don’t you summarize your findings for us?
 

Adverse childhood events

Dr. Subramanian: This is a web-based survey, so obviously, these are patient self-reports of their disease. We have a large cohort of people that we’ve been following over 7 years. I’m looking at modifiable variables and what really impacts Parkinson’s disease. Some of our previous papers have looked at diet, exercise, and loneliness. This is the same cohort.

We ended up putting the ACEs questionnaire, which is 10 questions looking at whether you were exposed to certain things in your household below the age of 18. This is a relatively standard questionnaire that’s administered one time, and you get a score out of 10. This is something that has been pushed, at least in the state of California, as something that we should be checking more in all people coming in.

We introduced the survey, and we didn’t force everyone to take it. Unfortunately, there was 20% or so of our patients who chose not to answer these questions. One has to ask, who are those people that didn’t answer the questions? Are they the ones that may have had trauma and these questions were triggering? It was a gap. We didn’t add extra questions to explore why people didn’t answer those questions.

We have to also put this in context. We have a patient population that’s largely quite affluent, who are able to access web-based surveys through their computer, and largely Caucasian; there are not many minoritized populations in our cohort. We want to do better with that. We actually were able to gather a decent number of women. We represent women quite well in our survey. I think that’s because of this online approach and some of the things that we’re studying.

In our survey, we broke it down into people who had no ACEs, one to three ACEs, or four or more ACEs. This is a standard way to break down ACEs so that we’re able to categorize what to do with these patient populations.

What we saw – and it’s preliminary evidence – is that people who had higher ACE scores seemed to have more symptom severity when we controlled for things like years since diagnosis, age, and gender. They also seem to have a worse quality of life. There was some indication that there were more nonmotor issues in those populations, as you might expect, such as anxiety, depression, and things that presumably ACEs can affect separately.

There are some confounders, but I think we really want to use this as the first piece of evidence to hopefully pave the way for caring about trauma in Parkinson’s disease moving forward.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you so much for that summary. You already mentioned the main methodology you used.

What is the next step for you? How do you see these findings informing our clinical care? Do you have suggestions for all of the neurologists listening in this regard?


 

PD not yet considered ACE-related

Dr. Subramanian: Dr. Burke Harris was the former surgeon general in California. She’s a woman of color and a brilliant speaker, and she had worked in inner cities, I think in San Francisco, with pediatric populations, seeing these effects of adversity in that time frame.

You see this population at risk, and then you’re following this cohort, which we knew from the Kaiser cohort determines earlier morbidity and mortality across a number of disease states. We’re seeing things like more heart attacks, more diabetes, and all kinds of things in these populations. This is not new news; we just have not been focusing on this.

In her paper, this call to action, they had talked about some ACE-related conditions that currently do not include Parkinson’s disease. There are three ACE-related neurologic conditions that people should be aware of. One is in the headache/pain universe. Another is in the stroke universe, and that’s understandable, given cardiovascular risk factors . Then the third is in this dementia risk category. I think Parkinson’s disease, as we know, can be associated with dementia. A large percentage of our patients get dementia, but we don’t have Parkinson’s disease called out in this framework.

What people are talking about is if you have no ACEs or are in this middle category of one to three ACEs and you don’t have an ACE-related diagnosis – which Parkinson’s disease is not currently – we just give some basic counseling about the importance of lifestyle. I think we would love to see that anyway. They’re talking about things like exercise, diet, sleep, social connection, getting out in nature, things like that, so just general counseling on the importance of that.

Then if you’re in this higher-risk category, and so with these ACE-related neurologic conditions, including dementia, headache, and stroke, if you had this middle range of one to three ACEs, they’re getting additional resources. Some of them may be referred for social work help or mental health support and things like that.

I’d really love to see that happening in Parkinson’s disease, because I think we have so many needs in our population. I’m always hoping to advocate for more mental health needs that are scarce and resources in the social support realm because I believe that social connection and social support is a huge buffer for this trauma.

ACEs are just one type of trauma. I take care of veterans in the Veterans [Affairs Department]. We have some information now coming out about posttraumatic stress disorder, predisposing to certain things in Parkinson’s disease, possibly head injury, and things like that. I think we have populations at risk that we can hopefully screen at intake, and I’m really pushing for that.

Maybe it’s not the neurologist that does this intake. It might be someone else on the team that can spend some time doing these questionnaires and understand if your patient has a high ACE score. Unless you ask, many patients don’t necessarily come forward to talk about this. I really am pushing for trying to screen and trying to advocate for more research in this area so that we can classify Parkinson’s disease as an ACE-related condition and thus give more resources from the mental health world, and also the social support world, to our patients.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you. There are many important points, and I think it’s a very important thing to recognize that it may not be only trauma in childhood but also throughout life, as you said, and might really influence nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in particular, including anxiety and pain, which are often difficult to treat.

I think there’s much more to do in research, advocacy, and education. We’re going to educate patients about this, and also educate other neurologists and providers. I think you mentioned that trauma-informed care is getting its spotlight in primary care and other specialties. I think we have catching up to do in neurology, and I think this is a really important work toward that goal.

Thank you so much for your work and for taking the time to share your thoughts. I hope to talk to you again soon.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Kathrin.
 

Dr. LaFaver has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Subramanian disclosed ties with Acorda Therapeutics.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Implementing a pediatric transition program in which a patient meets with both their pediatric and soon-to-be adult rheumatologist during a visit before formal transition resulted in less time setting up the first adult visit, according to research presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

The presentation was one of two that focused on ways to improve the transition from pediatric to adult care for rheumatology patients. The other, a poster from researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, took the first steps toward learning what factors can help predict a successful transition.

Tara Haelle

“This period of transitioning from pediatric to adult care, both rheumatology specific and otherwise, is a high-risk time,” John M. Bridges, MD, a fourth-year pediatric rheumatology fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told attendees. “There are changes in insurance coverage, employment, geographic mobility, and shifting responsibilities between parents and children in the setting of a still-developing frontal lobe that contribute to the risk of this period. Risks include disease flare, and then organ damage, as well as issues with decreasing medication and therapy, adherence, unscheduled care utilization, and increasing loss to follow-up.”

Dr. Bridges developed a structured transition program called the Bridge to Adult Care from Childhood for Young Adults with Rheumatic Disease (BACC YARD) aimed at improving the pediatric transition period. The analysis he presented focused specifically on reducing loss to follow-up by introducing a pretransfer visit with both rheumatologists. The patient first meets with their pediatric rheumatologist.

During that visit, the adult rheumatologist attends and discusses the patient’s history and current therapy with the pediatric rheumatologist before entering the patient’s room and having “a brief introductory conversation, a sort of verbal handoff and handshake, in front of the patient,” Dr. Bridges explained. “Then I assume responsibility for this patient and their next visit is to see me, both proverbially and literally down the street at the adulthood rheumatology clinic, where this patient becomes a part of my continuity cohort.”

Bridges entered patients from this BACC YARD cohort into an observational registry that included their dual provider pretransfer visit and a posttransfer visit, occurring between July 2020 and May 2022. He compared these patients with a historical control cohort of 45 patients from March 2018 to March 2020, who had at least two pediatric rheumatology visits prior to their transfer to adult care and no documentation of outside rheumatology visits during the study period. Specifically, he examined at the requested and actual interval between patients’ final pediatric rheumatology visit and their first adult rheumatology visit.

The intervention cohort included 86 patients, mostly female (73%), with a median age of 20. About two-thirds were White (65%) and one-third (34%) were Black. One patient was Asian, and 7% were Hispanic. Just over half the patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (58%), and 30% had lupus and related connective tissue diseases. The other patients had vasculitis, uveitis, inflammatory myopathy, relapsing polychondritis, morphea, or syndrome of undifferentiated recurrent fever.

A total of 8% of these patients had previously been lost to follow-up at Children’s of Alabama before they re-established rheumatology care at UAB, and 3.5% came from a pediatric rheumatologist from somewhere other than Children’s of Alabama but established adult care at UAB through the BACC YARD program. Among the remaining patients, 65% (n = 56) had both a dual provider pretransfer visit and a posttransfer visit.

The BACC YARD patients requested their next rheumatology visit (the first adult one) a median 119 days after their last pediatric visit, and the actual time until that visit was a median 141 days (P < .05). By comparison, the 45 patients in the historical control group had a median 261 days between their last pediatric visit and their first adult visit (P < .001). The median days between visits was shorter for those with JIA (129 days) and lupus (119 days) than for patients with other conditions (149 days).

Bridges acknowledged that the study was limited by the small size of the cohort and potential contextual factors related to individual patients’ circumstances.

“We’re continuing to make iterative changes to this process to try to continue to improve the transition and its outcomes in this cohort,” Dr. Bridges said.

Aimee Hersh, MD, an associate professor of pediatric rheumatology and division chief of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, both in Salt Lake City, attended the presentation and noted that the University of Utah has a very similar transfer program.

“I think one of the challenges of that model, and our model, is that you have to have a very specific type of physician who is both [medical-pediatrics] trained and has a specific interest in transition,” Dr. Hersh said in an interview. She noted that the adult rheumatologist at her institution didn’t train in pediatric rheumatology but did complete a meds-peds residency. “So if you can find an adult rheumatologist who can do something similar, can see older adolescent patients and serve as that transition bridge, then I think it is feasible.”

For practices that don’t have the resources for this kind of program, Dr. Hersh recommended the Got Transition program, which provides transition guidance that can be applied to any adolescent population with chronic illness.

The other study, led by Kristiana Nasto, BS, a third-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, reported on the findings from one aspect of a program also developed to improve the transition from pediatric to adult care for rheumatology patients. It included periodic self-reported evaluation using the validated Adolescent Assessment of Preparation for Transition (ADAPT) survey. As the first step to better understanding the factors that can predict successful transition, the researchers surveyed returning patients with any rheumatologic diagnosis, aged 14 years and older, between July 2021 and November 2022.

Since the survey was automated through the electronic medical record, patients and their caregivers could respond during in-person or virtual visit check-in. The researchers calculated three composite scores out of 100 for self-management, prescription management, and transfer planning, using responses from the ADAPT survey. Among 462 patients who returned 670 surveys, 87% provided surveys that could be scored for at least one composite score. Most respondents were female (75%), White (69%), non-Hispanic (64%), English speaking (90%), and aged 14-17 years (83%).

The overall average score for self-management from 401 respondents was 35. For prescription management, the average score was 59 from 288 respondents, and the average transfer planning score was 17 from 367 respondents. Self-management and transfer planning scores both improved with age (P = .0001). Self-management scores rose from an average of 20 at age 14 to an average of 64 at age 18 and older. Transfer planning scores increased from an average of 1 at age 14 to an average of 49 at age 18 and older. Prescription management scores remained high across all ages, from an average of 59 at age 14 to an average score of 66 at age 18 and older (P = .044). Although the scores did not statistically vary by age or race, Hispanic patients did score higher in self-management with an average of 44.5, compared with 31 among other patients (P = .0001).

Only 21% of patients completed two surveys, and 8.4% completed all three surveys. The average time between the first and second surveys was 4 months, during which there was no statistically significant change in self-management or prescription management scores, but transfer planning scores did increase from 14 to 21 (P = .008) among the 90 patients who completed those surveys.

The researchers concluded from their analysis that “participation in the transition pathway can rapidly improve transfer planning scores, [but] opportunities remain to improve readiness in all domains.” The researchers are in the process of developing Spanish-language surveys.

No external funding was noted for either study. Dr. Bridges, Dr. Hersh, and Ms. Nasto reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Implementing a pediatric transition program in which a patient meets with both their pediatric and soon-to-be adult rheumatologist during a visit before formal transition resulted in less time setting up the first adult visit, according to research presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

The presentation was one of two that focused on ways to improve the transition from pediatric to adult care for rheumatology patients. The other, a poster from researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, took the first steps toward learning what factors can help predict a successful transition.

Tara Haelle

“This period of transitioning from pediatric to adult care, both rheumatology specific and otherwise, is a high-risk time,” John M. Bridges, MD, a fourth-year pediatric rheumatology fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told attendees. “There are changes in insurance coverage, employment, geographic mobility, and shifting responsibilities between parents and children in the setting of a still-developing frontal lobe that contribute to the risk of this period. Risks include disease flare, and then organ damage, as well as issues with decreasing medication and therapy, adherence, unscheduled care utilization, and increasing loss to follow-up.”

Dr. Bridges developed a structured transition program called the Bridge to Adult Care from Childhood for Young Adults with Rheumatic Disease (BACC YARD) aimed at improving the pediatric transition period. The analysis he presented focused specifically on reducing loss to follow-up by introducing a pretransfer visit with both rheumatologists. The patient first meets with their pediatric rheumatologist.

During that visit, the adult rheumatologist attends and discusses the patient’s history and current therapy with the pediatric rheumatologist before entering the patient’s room and having “a brief introductory conversation, a sort of verbal handoff and handshake, in front of the patient,” Dr. Bridges explained. “Then I assume responsibility for this patient and their next visit is to see me, both proverbially and literally down the street at the adulthood rheumatology clinic, where this patient becomes a part of my continuity cohort.”

Bridges entered patients from this BACC YARD cohort into an observational registry that included their dual provider pretransfer visit and a posttransfer visit, occurring between July 2020 and May 2022. He compared these patients with a historical control cohort of 45 patients from March 2018 to March 2020, who had at least two pediatric rheumatology visits prior to their transfer to adult care and no documentation of outside rheumatology visits during the study period. Specifically, he examined at the requested and actual interval between patients’ final pediatric rheumatology visit and their first adult rheumatology visit.

The intervention cohort included 86 patients, mostly female (73%), with a median age of 20. About two-thirds were White (65%) and one-third (34%) were Black. One patient was Asian, and 7% were Hispanic. Just over half the patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (58%), and 30% had lupus and related connective tissue diseases. The other patients had vasculitis, uveitis, inflammatory myopathy, relapsing polychondritis, morphea, or syndrome of undifferentiated recurrent fever.

A total of 8% of these patients had previously been lost to follow-up at Children’s of Alabama before they re-established rheumatology care at UAB, and 3.5% came from a pediatric rheumatologist from somewhere other than Children’s of Alabama but established adult care at UAB through the BACC YARD program. Among the remaining patients, 65% (n = 56) had both a dual provider pretransfer visit and a posttransfer visit.

The BACC YARD patients requested their next rheumatology visit (the first adult one) a median 119 days after their last pediatric visit, and the actual time until that visit was a median 141 days (P < .05). By comparison, the 45 patients in the historical control group had a median 261 days between their last pediatric visit and their first adult visit (P < .001). The median days between visits was shorter for those with JIA (129 days) and lupus (119 days) than for patients with other conditions (149 days).

Bridges acknowledged that the study was limited by the small size of the cohort and potential contextual factors related to individual patients’ circumstances.

“We’re continuing to make iterative changes to this process to try to continue to improve the transition and its outcomes in this cohort,” Dr. Bridges said.

Aimee Hersh, MD, an associate professor of pediatric rheumatology and division chief of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, both in Salt Lake City, attended the presentation and noted that the University of Utah has a very similar transfer program.

“I think one of the challenges of that model, and our model, is that you have to have a very specific type of physician who is both [medical-pediatrics] trained and has a specific interest in transition,” Dr. Hersh said in an interview. She noted that the adult rheumatologist at her institution didn’t train in pediatric rheumatology but did complete a meds-peds residency. “So if you can find an adult rheumatologist who can do something similar, can see older adolescent patients and serve as that transition bridge, then I think it is feasible.”

For practices that don’t have the resources for this kind of program, Dr. Hersh recommended the Got Transition program, which provides transition guidance that can be applied to any adolescent population with chronic illness.

The other study, led by Kristiana Nasto, BS, a third-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, reported on the findings from one aspect of a program also developed to improve the transition from pediatric to adult care for rheumatology patients. It included periodic self-reported evaluation using the validated Adolescent Assessment of Preparation for Transition (ADAPT) survey. As the first step to better understanding the factors that can predict successful transition, the researchers surveyed returning patients with any rheumatologic diagnosis, aged 14 years and older, between July 2021 and November 2022.

Since the survey was automated through the electronic medical record, patients and their caregivers could respond during in-person or virtual visit check-in. The researchers calculated three composite scores out of 100 for self-management, prescription management, and transfer planning, using responses from the ADAPT survey. Among 462 patients who returned 670 surveys, 87% provided surveys that could be scored for at least one composite score. Most respondents were female (75%), White (69%), non-Hispanic (64%), English speaking (90%), and aged 14-17 years (83%).

The overall average score for self-management from 401 respondents was 35. For prescription management, the average score was 59 from 288 respondents, and the average transfer planning score was 17 from 367 respondents. Self-management and transfer planning scores both improved with age (P = .0001). Self-management scores rose from an average of 20 at age 14 to an average of 64 at age 18 and older. Transfer planning scores increased from an average of 1 at age 14 to an average of 49 at age 18 and older. Prescription management scores remained high across all ages, from an average of 59 at age 14 to an average score of 66 at age 18 and older (P = .044). Although the scores did not statistically vary by age or race, Hispanic patients did score higher in self-management with an average of 44.5, compared with 31 among other patients (P = .0001).

Only 21% of patients completed two surveys, and 8.4% completed all three surveys. The average time between the first and second surveys was 4 months, during which there was no statistically significant change in self-management or prescription management scores, but transfer planning scores did increase from 14 to 21 (P = .008) among the 90 patients who completed those surveys.

The researchers concluded from their analysis that “participation in the transition pathway can rapidly improve transfer planning scores, [but] opportunities remain to improve readiness in all domains.” The researchers are in the process of developing Spanish-language surveys.

No external funding was noted for either study. Dr. Bridges, Dr. Hersh, and Ms. Nasto reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Implementing a pediatric transition program in which a patient meets with both their pediatric and soon-to-be adult rheumatologist during a visit before formal transition resulted in less time setting up the first adult visit, according to research presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

The presentation was one of two that focused on ways to improve the transition from pediatric to adult care for rheumatology patients. The other, a poster from researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, took the first steps toward learning what factors can help predict a successful transition.

Tara Haelle

“This period of transitioning from pediatric to adult care, both rheumatology specific and otherwise, is a high-risk time,” John M. Bridges, MD, a fourth-year pediatric rheumatology fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told attendees. “There are changes in insurance coverage, employment, geographic mobility, and shifting responsibilities between parents and children in the setting of a still-developing frontal lobe that contribute to the risk of this period. Risks include disease flare, and then organ damage, as well as issues with decreasing medication and therapy, adherence, unscheduled care utilization, and increasing loss to follow-up.”

Dr. Bridges developed a structured transition program called the Bridge to Adult Care from Childhood for Young Adults with Rheumatic Disease (BACC YARD) aimed at improving the pediatric transition period. The analysis he presented focused specifically on reducing loss to follow-up by introducing a pretransfer visit with both rheumatologists. The patient first meets with their pediatric rheumatologist.

During that visit, the adult rheumatologist attends and discusses the patient’s history and current therapy with the pediatric rheumatologist before entering the patient’s room and having “a brief introductory conversation, a sort of verbal handoff and handshake, in front of the patient,” Dr. Bridges explained. “Then I assume responsibility for this patient and their next visit is to see me, both proverbially and literally down the street at the adulthood rheumatology clinic, where this patient becomes a part of my continuity cohort.”

Bridges entered patients from this BACC YARD cohort into an observational registry that included their dual provider pretransfer visit and a posttransfer visit, occurring between July 2020 and May 2022. He compared these patients with a historical control cohort of 45 patients from March 2018 to March 2020, who had at least two pediatric rheumatology visits prior to their transfer to adult care and no documentation of outside rheumatology visits during the study period. Specifically, he examined at the requested and actual interval between patients’ final pediatric rheumatology visit and their first adult rheumatology visit.

The intervention cohort included 86 patients, mostly female (73%), with a median age of 20. About two-thirds were White (65%) and one-third (34%) were Black. One patient was Asian, and 7% were Hispanic. Just over half the patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (58%), and 30% had lupus and related connective tissue diseases. The other patients had vasculitis, uveitis, inflammatory myopathy, relapsing polychondritis, morphea, or syndrome of undifferentiated recurrent fever.

A total of 8% of these patients had previously been lost to follow-up at Children’s of Alabama before they re-established rheumatology care at UAB, and 3.5% came from a pediatric rheumatologist from somewhere other than Children’s of Alabama but established adult care at UAB through the BACC YARD program. Among the remaining patients, 65% (n = 56) had both a dual provider pretransfer visit and a posttransfer visit.

The BACC YARD patients requested their next rheumatology visit (the first adult one) a median 119 days after their last pediatric visit, and the actual time until that visit was a median 141 days (P < .05). By comparison, the 45 patients in the historical control group had a median 261 days between their last pediatric visit and their first adult visit (P < .001). The median days between visits was shorter for those with JIA (129 days) and lupus (119 days) than for patients with other conditions (149 days).

Bridges acknowledged that the study was limited by the small size of the cohort and potential contextual factors related to individual patients’ circumstances.

“We’re continuing to make iterative changes to this process to try to continue to improve the transition and its outcomes in this cohort,” Dr. Bridges said.

Aimee Hersh, MD, an associate professor of pediatric rheumatology and division chief of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, both in Salt Lake City, attended the presentation and noted that the University of Utah has a very similar transfer program.

“I think one of the challenges of that model, and our model, is that you have to have a very specific type of physician who is both [medical-pediatrics] trained and has a specific interest in transition,” Dr. Hersh said in an interview. She noted that the adult rheumatologist at her institution didn’t train in pediatric rheumatology but did complete a meds-peds residency. “So if you can find an adult rheumatologist who can do something similar, can see older adolescent patients and serve as that transition bridge, then I think it is feasible.”

For practices that don’t have the resources for this kind of program, Dr. Hersh recommended the Got Transition program, which provides transition guidance that can be applied to any adolescent population with chronic illness.

The other study, led by Kristiana Nasto, BS, a third-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, reported on the findings from one aspect of a program also developed to improve the transition from pediatric to adult care for rheumatology patients. It included periodic self-reported evaluation using the validated Adolescent Assessment of Preparation for Transition (ADAPT) survey. As the first step to better understanding the factors that can predict successful transition, the researchers surveyed returning patients with any rheumatologic diagnosis, aged 14 years and older, between July 2021 and November 2022.

Since the survey was automated through the electronic medical record, patients and their caregivers could respond during in-person or virtual visit check-in. The researchers calculated three composite scores out of 100 for self-management, prescription management, and transfer planning, using responses from the ADAPT survey. Among 462 patients who returned 670 surveys, 87% provided surveys that could be scored for at least one composite score. Most respondents were female (75%), White (69%), non-Hispanic (64%), English speaking (90%), and aged 14-17 years (83%).

The overall average score for self-management from 401 respondents was 35. For prescription management, the average score was 59 from 288 respondents, and the average transfer planning score was 17 from 367 respondents. Self-management and transfer planning scores both improved with age (P = .0001). Self-management scores rose from an average of 20 at age 14 to an average of 64 at age 18 and older. Transfer planning scores increased from an average of 1 at age 14 to an average of 49 at age 18 and older. Prescription management scores remained high across all ages, from an average of 59 at age 14 to an average score of 66 at age 18 and older (P = .044). Although the scores did not statistically vary by age or race, Hispanic patients did score higher in self-management with an average of 44.5, compared with 31 among other patients (P = .0001).

Only 21% of patients completed two surveys, and 8.4% completed all three surveys. The average time between the first and second surveys was 4 months, during which there was no statistically significant change in self-management or prescription management scores, but transfer planning scores did increase from 14 to 21 (P = .008) among the 90 patients who completed those surveys.

The researchers concluded from their analysis that “participation in the transition pathway can rapidly improve transfer planning scores, [but] opportunities remain to improve readiness in all domains.” The researchers are in the process of developing Spanish-language surveys.

No external funding was noted for either study. Dr. Bridges, Dr. Hersh, and Ms. Nasto reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) offer prolonged remission, along with a need for better tools to gauge their effectiveness. Data from a new study published in Frontiers in Oncology demonstrate that assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) helps doctors evaluate and implement novel treatments.

“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.

courtesy of NHS

“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.

The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).

“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x10⁶ leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.

“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.

The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.

Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.

Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.

“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.

Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.

The latest therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) offer prolonged remission, along with a need for better tools to gauge their effectiveness. Data from a new study published in Frontiers in Oncology demonstrate that assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) helps doctors evaluate and implement novel treatments.

“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.

courtesy of NHS

“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.

The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).

“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x10⁶ leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.

“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.

The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.

Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.

Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.

“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.

Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.

The latest therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) offer prolonged remission, along with a need for better tools to gauge their effectiveness. Data from a new study published in Frontiers in Oncology demonstrate that assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) helps doctors evaluate and implement novel treatments.

“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.

courtesy of NHS

“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.

The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).

“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x10⁶ leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.

“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.

The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.

Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.

Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.

“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.

Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

A magnesium-rich diet has been linked to better brain health, an outcome that may help lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators studied more than 6,000 cognitively healthy individuals, aged 40-73, and found that those who consumed more than 550 mg of magnesium daily had a brain age approximately 1 year younger by age 55 years, compared with a person who consumed a normal magnesium intake (~360 mg per day).

“This research highlights the potential benefits of a diet high in magnesium and the role it plays in promoting good brain health,” lead author Khawlah Alateeq, a PhD candidate in neuroscience at Australian National University’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, said in an interview.

Clinicians “can use [the findings] to counsel patients on the benefits of increasing magnesium intake through a healthy diet and monitoring magnesium levels to prevent deficiencies,” she stated.

The study was published online  in the European Journal of Nutrition.
 

Promising target

The researchers were motivated to conduct the study because of “the growing concern over the increasing prevalence of dementia,” Ms. Alateeq said.

“Since there is no cure for dementia, and the development of pharmacological treatment for dementia has been unsuccessful over the last 30 years, prevention has been suggested as an effective approach to address the issue,” she added.

Nutrition, Ms. Alateeq said, is a “modifiable risk factor that can influence brain health and is highly amenable to scalable and cost-effective interventions.” It represents “a promising target” for risk reduction at a population level.

Previous research shows individuals with lower magnesium levels are at higher risk for AD, while those with higher dietary magnesium intake may be at lower risk of progressing from normal aging to cognitive impairment.

Most previous studies, however, included participants older than age 60 years, and it’s “unclear when the neuroprotective effects of dietary magnesium become detectable,” the researchers note.

Moreover, dietary patterns change and fluctuate, potentially leading to changes in magnesium intake over time. These changes may have as much impact as absolute magnesium at any point in time.

In light of the “current lack of understanding of when and to what extent dietary magnesium exerts its protective effects on the brain,” the researchers examined the association between magnesium trajectories over time, brain matter, and white matter lesions.

They also examined the association between magnesium and several different blood pressure measures (mean arterial pressure, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and pulse pressure).

Since cardiovascular health, neurodegeneration, and brain shrinkage patterns differ between men and women, the researchers stratified their analyses by sex.
 

Brain volume differences

The researchers analyzed the dietary magnesium intake of 6,001 individuals (mean age, 55.3 years) selected from the UK Biobank – a prospective cohort study of participants aged 37-73 at baseline, who were assessed between 2005 and 2023.

For the current study, only participants with baseline DBP and SBP measurements and structural MRI scans were included. Participants were also required to be free of neurologic disorders and to have an available record of dietary magnesium intake.

Covariates included age, sex, education, health conditions, smoking status, body mass index, amount of physical activity, smoking status, and alcohol intake.

Over a 16-month period, participants completed an online questionnaire five times. Their responses were used to calculate daily magnesium intake. Foods of particular interest included leafy green vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, and whole grains, all of which are magnesium rich.

They used latent class analysis (LCA) to “identify mutually exclusive subgroup (classes) of magnesium intake trajectory separately for men and women.”

Men had a slightly higher prevalence of BP medication and diabetes, compared with women, and postmenopausal women had a higher prevalence of BP medication and diabetes, compared with premenopausal women.

Compared with lower baseline magnesium intake, higher baseline dietary intake of magnesium was associated with larger brain volumes in several regions in both men and women.

The latent class analysis identified three classes of magnesium intake:

Association, not causation

Yuko Hara, PhD, director of Aging and Prevention, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the study is observational and therefore shows an association, not causation.

“People eating a high-magnesium diet may also be eating a brain-healthy diet and getting high levels of nutrients/minerals other than magnesium alone,” suggested Dr. Hara, who was not involved with the study.

She noted that many foods are good sources of magnesium, including spinach, almonds, cashews, legumes, yogurt, brown rice, and avocados.

“Eating a brain-healthy diet (for example, the Mediterranean diet) is one of the Seven Steps to Protect Your Cognitive Vitality that ADDF’s Cognitive Vitality promotes,” she said.

Open Access funding was enabled and organized by the Council of Australian University Librarians and its Member Institutions. Ms. Alateeq, her co-authors, and Dr. Hara declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

A magnesium-rich diet has been linked to better brain health, an outcome that may help lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators studied more than 6,000 cognitively healthy individuals, aged 40-73, and found that those who consumed more than 550 mg of magnesium daily had a brain age approximately 1 year younger by age 55 years, compared with a person who consumed a normal magnesium intake (~360 mg per day).

“This research highlights the potential benefits of a diet high in magnesium and the role it plays in promoting good brain health,” lead author Khawlah Alateeq, a PhD candidate in neuroscience at Australian National University’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, said in an interview.

Clinicians “can use [the findings] to counsel patients on the benefits of increasing magnesium intake through a healthy diet and monitoring magnesium levels to prevent deficiencies,” she stated.

The study was published online  in the European Journal of Nutrition.
 

Promising target

The researchers were motivated to conduct the study because of “the growing concern over the increasing prevalence of dementia,” Ms. Alateeq said.

“Since there is no cure for dementia, and the development of pharmacological treatment for dementia has been unsuccessful over the last 30 years, prevention has been suggested as an effective approach to address the issue,” she added.

Nutrition, Ms. Alateeq said, is a “modifiable risk factor that can influence brain health and is highly amenable to scalable and cost-effective interventions.” It represents “a promising target” for risk reduction at a population level.

Previous research shows individuals with lower magnesium levels are at higher risk for AD, while those with higher dietary magnesium intake may be at lower risk of progressing from normal aging to cognitive impairment.

Most previous studies, however, included participants older than age 60 years, and it’s “unclear when the neuroprotective effects of dietary magnesium become detectable,” the researchers note.

Moreover, dietary patterns change and fluctuate, potentially leading to changes in magnesium intake over time. These changes may have as much impact as absolute magnesium at any point in time.

In light of the “current lack of understanding of when and to what extent dietary magnesium exerts its protective effects on the brain,” the researchers examined the association between magnesium trajectories over time, brain matter, and white matter lesions.

They also examined the association between magnesium and several different blood pressure measures (mean arterial pressure, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and pulse pressure).

Since cardiovascular health, neurodegeneration, and brain shrinkage patterns differ between men and women, the researchers stratified their analyses by sex.
 

Brain volume differences

The researchers analyzed the dietary magnesium intake of 6,001 individuals (mean age, 55.3 years) selected from the UK Biobank – a prospective cohort study of participants aged 37-73 at baseline, who were assessed between 2005 and 2023.

For the current study, only participants with baseline DBP and SBP measurements and structural MRI scans were included. Participants were also required to be free of neurologic disorders and to have an available record of dietary magnesium intake.

Covariates included age, sex, education, health conditions, smoking status, body mass index, amount of physical activity, smoking status, and alcohol intake.

Over a 16-month period, participants completed an online questionnaire five times. Their responses were used to calculate daily magnesium intake. Foods of particular interest included leafy green vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, and whole grains, all of which are magnesium rich.

They used latent class analysis (LCA) to “identify mutually exclusive subgroup (classes) of magnesium intake trajectory separately for men and women.”

Men had a slightly higher prevalence of BP medication and diabetes, compared with women, and postmenopausal women had a higher prevalence of BP medication and diabetes, compared with premenopausal women.

Compared with lower baseline magnesium intake, higher baseline dietary intake of magnesium was associated with larger brain volumes in several regions in both men and women.

The latent class analysis identified three classes of magnesium intake:

Association, not causation

Yuko Hara, PhD, director of Aging and Prevention, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the study is observational and therefore shows an association, not causation.

“People eating a high-magnesium diet may also be eating a brain-healthy diet and getting high levels of nutrients/minerals other than magnesium alone,” suggested Dr. Hara, who was not involved with the study.

She noted that many foods are good sources of magnesium, including spinach, almonds, cashews, legumes, yogurt, brown rice, and avocados.

“Eating a brain-healthy diet (for example, the Mediterranean diet) is one of the Seven Steps to Protect Your Cognitive Vitality that ADDF’s Cognitive Vitality promotes,” she said.

Open Access funding was enabled and organized by the Council of Australian University Librarians and its Member Institutions. Ms. Alateeq, her co-authors, and Dr. Hara declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

A magnesium-rich diet has been linked to better brain health, an outcome that may help lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators studied more than 6,000 cognitively healthy individuals, aged 40-73, and found that those who consumed more than 550 mg of magnesium daily had a brain age approximately 1 year younger by age 55 years, compared with a person who consumed a normal magnesium intake (~360 mg per day).

“This research highlights the potential benefits of a diet high in magnesium and the role it plays in promoting good brain health,” lead author Khawlah Alateeq, a PhD candidate in neuroscience at Australian National University’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, said in an interview.

Clinicians “can use [the findings] to counsel patients on the benefits of increasing magnesium intake through a healthy diet and monitoring magnesium levels to prevent deficiencies,” she stated.

The study was published online  in the European Journal of Nutrition.
 

Promising target

The researchers were motivated to conduct the study because of “the growing concern over the increasing prevalence of dementia,” Ms. Alateeq said.

“Since there is no cure for dementia, and the development of pharmacological treatment for dementia has been unsuccessful over the last 30 years, prevention has been suggested as an effective approach to address the issue,” she added.

Nutrition, Ms. Alateeq said, is a “modifiable risk factor that can influence brain health and is highly amenable to scalable and cost-effective interventions.” It represents “a promising target” for risk reduction at a population level.

Previous research shows individuals with lower magnesium levels are at higher risk for AD, while those with higher dietary magnesium intake may be at lower risk of progressing from normal aging to cognitive impairment.

Most previous studies, however, included participants older than age 60 years, and it’s “unclear when the neuroprotective effects of dietary magnesium become detectable,” the researchers note.

Moreover, dietary patterns change and fluctuate, potentially leading to changes in magnesium intake over time. These changes may have as much impact as absolute magnesium at any point in time.

In light of the “current lack of understanding of when and to what extent dietary magnesium exerts its protective effects on the brain,” the researchers examined the association between magnesium trajectories over time, brain matter, and white matter lesions.

They also examined the association between magnesium and several different blood pressure measures (mean arterial pressure, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and pulse pressure).

Since cardiovascular health, neurodegeneration, and brain shrinkage patterns differ between men and women, the researchers stratified their analyses by sex.
 

Brain volume differences

The researchers analyzed the dietary magnesium intake of 6,001 individuals (mean age, 55.3 years) selected from the UK Biobank – a prospective cohort study of participants aged 37-73 at baseline, who were assessed between 2005 and 2023.

For the current study, only participants with baseline DBP and SBP measurements and structural MRI scans were included. Participants were also required to be free of neurologic disorders and to have an available record of dietary magnesium intake.

Covariates included age, sex, education, health conditions, smoking status, body mass index, amount of physical activity, smoking status, and alcohol intake.

Over a 16-month period, participants completed an online questionnaire five times. Their responses were used to calculate daily magnesium intake. Foods of particular interest included leafy green vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, and whole grains, all of which are magnesium rich.

They used latent class analysis (LCA) to “identify mutually exclusive subgroup (classes) of magnesium intake trajectory separately for men and women.”

Men had a slightly higher prevalence of BP medication and diabetes, compared with women, and postmenopausal women had a higher prevalence of BP medication and diabetes, compared with premenopausal women.

Compared with lower baseline magnesium intake, higher baseline dietary intake of magnesium was associated with larger brain volumes in several regions in both men and women.

The latent class analysis identified three classes of magnesium intake:

Association, not causation

Yuko Hara, PhD, director of Aging and Prevention, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the study is observational and therefore shows an association, not causation.

“People eating a high-magnesium diet may also be eating a brain-healthy diet and getting high levels of nutrients/minerals other than magnesium alone,” suggested Dr. Hara, who was not involved with the study.

She noted that many foods are good sources of magnesium, including spinach, almonds, cashews, legumes, yogurt, brown rice, and avocados.

“Eating a brain-healthy diet (for example, the Mediterranean diet) is one of the Seven Steps to Protect Your Cognitive Vitality that ADDF’s Cognitive Vitality promotes,” she said.

Open Access funding was enabled and organized by the Council of Australian University Librarians and its Member Institutions. Ms. Alateeq, her co-authors, and Dr. Hara declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Few diseases have stymied explanation like autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We know that the prevalence has been increasing dramatically, but we aren’t quite sure whether that is because of more screening and awareness or more fundamental changes. We know that much of the risk appears to be genetic, but there may be 1,000 genes involved in the syndrome. We know that certain environmental exposures, like pollution, might increase the risk – perhaps on a susceptible genetic background – but we’re not really sure which exposures are most harmful.

So, the search continues, across all domains of inquiry from cell culture to large epidemiologic analyses. And this week, a new player enters the field, and, as they say, it’s something in the water.

Does exposure to lithium in groundwater cause autism?

We’re talking about this paper, by Zeyan Liew and colleagues, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Using the incredibly robust health data infrastructure in Denmark, the researchers were able to identify 8,842 children born between 2000 and 2013 with ASD and matched each one to five control kids of the same sex and age without autism.

They then mapped the location the mothers of these kids lived while they were pregnant – down to 5 meters resolution, actually – to groundwater lithium levels.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

JAMA Pediatrics

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

U.S. Geological Survey

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t”, is available now.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Few diseases have stymied explanation like autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We know that the prevalence has been increasing dramatically, but we aren’t quite sure whether that is because of more screening and awareness or more fundamental changes. We know that much of the risk appears to be genetic, but there may be 1,000 genes involved in the syndrome. We know that certain environmental exposures, like pollution, might increase the risk – perhaps on a susceptible genetic background – but we’re not really sure which exposures are most harmful.

So, the search continues, across all domains of inquiry from cell culture to large epidemiologic analyses. And this week, a new player enters the field, and, as they say, it’s something in the water.

Does exposure to lithium in groundwater cause autism?

We’re talking about this paper, by Zeyan Liew and colleagues, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Using the incredibly robust health data infrastructure in Denmark, the researchers were able to identify 8,842 children born between 2000 and 2013 with ASD and matched each one to five control kids of the same sex and age without autism.

They then mapped the location the mothers of these kids lived while they were pregnant – down to 5 meters resolution, actually – to groundwater lithium levels.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

JAMA Pediatrics

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

U.S. Geological Survey

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t”, is available now.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Few diseases have stymied explanation like autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We know that the prevalence has been increasing dramatically, but we aren’t quite sure whether that is because of more screening and awareness or more fundamental changes. We know that much of the risk appears to be genetic, but there may be 1,000 genes involved in the syndrome. We know that certain environmental exposures, like pollution, might increase the risk – perhaps on a susceptible genetic background – but we’re not really sure which exposures are most harmful.

So, the search continues, across all domains of inquiry from cell culture to large epidemiologic analyses. And this week, a new player enters the field, and, as they say, it’s something in the water.

Does exposure to lithium in groundwater cause autism?

We’re talking about this paper, by Zeyan Liew and colleagues, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Using the incredibly robust health data infrastructure in Denmark, the researchers were able to identify 8,842 children born between 2000 and 2013 with ASD and matched each one to five control kids of the same sex and age without autism.

They then mapped the location the mothers of these kids lived while they were pregnant – down to 5 meters resolution, actually – to groundwater lithium levels.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

JAMA Pediatrics

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

U.S. Geological Survey

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t”, is available now.

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

Psychiatrists practice in a wide array of ways. We approach our work and our patients with beliefs and preconceptions that develop over time. Our training has significant influence, though our own personalities and biases also affect our understanding.

Psychiatrists have philosophical lenses through which they see patients. We can reflect and see some standard archetypes. We are familiar with the reductionistic pharmacologist, the somatic treatment specialist, the psychodynamic ‘guru,’ and the medicolegally paralyzed practitioner. It is without judgment that we lay these out, for our very point is that we have these constituent parts within our own clinical identities. The intensity with which we subscribe to these clinical sensibilities could contribute to a biased orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy can be defined as an accepted theory that stems from an authoritative entity. This is a well-known phenomenon that continues to be visible. For example, one can quickly peruse psychodynamic literature to find one school of thought criticizing another. It is not without some confrontation and even interpersonal rifts that the lineage of psychoanalytic theory has evolved. This has always been of interest to us. A core facet of psychoanalysis is empathy, truly knowing the inner state of a different person. And yet, the very bastions of this clinical sensibility frequently resort to veiled attacks on those in their field who have opposing views. It then begs the question: If even enlightened institutions fail at a nonjudgmental approach toward their colleagues, what hope is there for the rest of us clinicians, mired in the thick of day-to-day clinical practice?

It is our contention that the odds are against us. Even the aforementioned critique of psychoanalytic orthodoxy is just another example of how we humans organize our experience. Even as we write an article in argument against unbridled critique, we find it difficult to do so without engaging in it. For to criticize another is to help shore up our own personal identities. This is especially the case when clinicians deal with issues that we feel strongly about. The human psyche has a need to organize its experience, as “our experience of ourselves is fundamental to how we operate in the world. Our subjective experience is the phenomenology of all that one might be aware of.”¹

In this vein, we would like to cite attribution theory. This is a view of human behavior within social psychology. The Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider, PhD, investigated “the domain of social interactions, wondering how people perceive each other in interaction and especially how they make sense of each other’s behavior.”² Attribution theory suggests that as humans organize our social interactions, we may make two basic assumptions. One is that our own behavior is highly affected by an environment that is beyond our control. The second is that when judging the behavior of others, we are more likely to attribute it to internal traits that they have. A classic example is automobile traffic. When we see someone driving erratically, we are more likely to blame them for being an inherently bad driver. However, if attention is called to our own driving, we are more likely to cite external factors such as rush hour, a bad driver around us, or a faulty vehicle.

We would like to reference one last model of human behavior. It has become customary within the field of neuroscience to view the brain as a predictive organ: “Theories of prediction in perception, action, and learning suggest that the brain serves to reduce the discrepancies between expectation and actual experience, i.e., by reducing the prediction error.”³ Perception itself has recently been described as a controlled hallucination, where the brain makes predictions of what it thinks it is about to see based on past experiences. Visual stimulus ultimately takes time to enter our eyes and be processed in the brain – “predictions would need to preactivate neural representations that would typically be driven by sensory input, before the actual arrival of that input.”⁴ It thus seems to be an inherent method of the brain to anticipate visual and even social events to help human beings sustain themselves.

Having spoken of a psychoanalytic conceptualization of self-organization, the theory of attribution, and research into social neuroscience, we turn our attention back to the central question that this article would like to address. Can we, as clinicians, truly put ourselves into the mindset of our colleagues and appreciate, and even agree with, the philosophies and methodologies of our fellow psychiatrists?

When we find ourselves busy in rote clinical practice, we believe the likelihood of intercollegiate mentalization is low; our ability to relate to our peers becomes strained. We ultimately do not practice in a vacuum. Psychiatrists, even those in a solo private practice, are ultimately part of a community of providers who, more or less, follow some emergent ‘standard of care.’ This can be a vague concept; but one that takes on a concrete form in the minds of certain clinicians and certainly in the setting of a medicolegal court. Yet, the psychiatrists that we know all have very stereotyped ways of practice. And at the heart of it, we all think that we are right.

We can use polypharmacy as an example. Imagine that you have a new patient intake, who tells you that they are transferring care from another psychiatrist. They inform you of their medication regimen. This patient presents on eight or more psychotropics. Many of us may have a visceral reaction at this point and, following the aforementioned attribution theory, we may ask ourselves what ‘quack’ of a doctor would do this. Yet some among us would think that a very competent psychopharmacologist was daring enough to use the full armamentarium of psychopharmacology to help this patient, who must be treatment refractory.

When speaking with such a patient, we would be quick to reflect on our own parsimonious use of medications. We would tell ourselves that we are responsible providers and would be quick to recommend discontinuation of medications. This would help us feel better about ourselves, and would of course assuage the ever-present medicolegal ‘big brother’ in our minds. It is through this very process that we affirm our self-identities. For if this patient’s previous physician was a bad psychiatrist, then we are a good psychiatrist. It is through this process that our clinical selves find confirmation.

We do not mean to reduce the complexities of human behavior to quick stereotypes. However, it is our belief that when confronted with clinical or philosophical disputes with our colleagues, the basic rules of human behavior will attempt to dissolve and override efforts at mentalization, collegiality, or interpersonal sensitivity. For to accept a clinical practice view that is different from ours would be akin to giving up the essence of our clinical identities. It could be compared to the fragmentation process of a vulnerable psyche when confronted with a reality that is at odds with preconceived notions and experiences.

While we may be able to appreciate the nuances and sensibilities of another provider, we believe it would be particularly difficult for most of us to actually attempt to practice in a fashion that is not congruent with our own organizers of experience. Whether or not our practice style is ‘perfect,’ it has worked for us. Social neuroscience and our understanding of the organization of the self would predict that we would hold onto our way of practice with all the mind’s defenses. Externalization, denial, and projection could all be called into action in this battle against existential fragmentation.

Do we seek to portray a clinical world where there is no hope for genuine modeling of clinical sensibilities to other psychiatrists? That is not our intention. Yet it seems that many of the theoretical frameworks that we subscribe to argue against this possibility. We would be hypocritical if we did not here state that our own theoretical frameworks are yet other examples of “organizers of experience.” Attribution theory, intersubjectivity, and social neuroscience are simply our ways of organizing the chaos of perceptions, ideas, and intricacies of human behavior.

If we accept that psychiatrists, like all human beings, are trapped in a subjective experience, then we can be more playful and flexible when interacting with our colleagues. We do not have to be as defensive of our practices and accusatory of others. If we practice daily according to some orthodoxy, then we color our experiences of the patient and of our colleagues’ ways of practice. We automatically start off on the wrong foot. And yet, to give up this orthodoxy would, by definition, be disorganizing and fragmenting to us. For as Nietzsche said, “truth is an illusion without which a certain species could not survive.”⁵

Dr. Khalafian practices full time as a general outpatient psychiatrist. He trained at the University of California, San Diego, for his psychiatric residency and currently works as a telepsychiatrist, serving an outpatient clinic population in northern California. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Badre and Dr. Khalafian have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Buirski P and Haglund P. Making sense together: The intersubjective approach to psychotherapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson; 2001.

2. Malle BF. Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. In Chadee D (ed.), Theories in social psychology. pp. 72-95. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.

3. Brown EC and Brune M. The role of prediction in social neuroscience. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 May 24;6:147. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00147.

4. Blom T et al. Predictions drive neural representations of visual events ahead of incoming sensory information. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020 Mar 31;117(13):7510-7515. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917777117.

5. Yalom I. The Gift of Therapy. Harper Perennial; 2002.

Psychiatrists practice in a wide array of ways. We approach our work and our patients with beliefs and preconceptions that develop over time. Our training has significant influence, though our own personalities and biases also affect our understanding.

Psychiatrists have philosophical lenses through which they see patients. We can reflect and see some standard archetypes. We are familiar with the reductionistic pharmacologist, the somatic treatment specialist, the psychodynamic ‘guru,’ and the medicolegally paralyzed practitioner. It is without judgment that we lay these out, for our very point is that we have these constituent parts within our own clinical identities. The intensity with which we subscribe to these clinical sensibilities could contribute to a biased orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy can be defined as an accepted theory that stems from an authoritative entity. This is a well-known phenomenon that continues to be visible. For example, one can quickly peruse psychodynamic literature to find one school of thought criticizing another. It is not without some confrontation and even interpersonal rifts that the lineage of psychoanalytic theory has evolved. This has always been of interest to us. A core facet of psychoanalysis is empathy, truly knowing the inner state of a different person. And yet, the very bastions of this clinical sensibility frequently resort to veiled attacks on those in their field who have opposing views. It then begs the question: If even enlightened institutions fail at a nonjudgmental approach toward their colleagues, what hope is there for the rest of us clinicians, mired in the thick of day-to-day clinical practice?

It is our contention that the odds are against us. Even the aforementioned critique of psychoanalytic orthodoxy is just another example of how we humans organize our experience. Even as we write an article in argument against unbridled critique, we find it difficult to do so without engaging in it. For to criticize another is to help shore up our own personal identities. This is especially the case when clinicians deal with issues that we feel strongly about. The human psyche has a need to organize its experience, as “our experience of ourselves is fundamental to how we operate in the world. Our subjective experience is the phenomenology of all that one might be aware of.”¹

In this vein, we would like to cite attribution theory. This is a view of human behavior within social psychology. The Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider, PhD, investigated “the domain of social interactions, wondering how people perceive each other in interaction and especially how they make sense of each other’s behavior.”² Attribution theory suggests that as humans organize our social interactions, we may make two basic assumptions. One is that our own behavior is highly affected by an environment that is beyond our control. The second is that when judging the behavior of others, we are more likely to attribute it to internal traits that they have. A classic example is automobile traffic. When we see someone driving erratically, we are more likely to blame them for being an inherently bad driver. However, if attention is called to our own driving, we are more likely to cite external factors such as rush hour, a bad driver around us, or a faulty vehicle.

We would like to reference one last model of human behavior. It has become customary within the field of neuroscience to view the brain as a predictive organ: “Theories of prediction in perception, action, and learning suggest that the brain serves to reduce the discrepancies between expectation and actual experience, i.e., by reducing the prediction error.”³ Perception itself has recently been described as a controlled hallucination, where the brain makes predictions of what it thinks it is about to see based on past experiences. Visual stimulus ultimately takes time to enter our eyes and be processed in the brain – “predictions would need to preactivate neural representations that would typically be driven by sensory input, before the actual arrival of that input.”⁴ It thus seems to be an inherent method of the brain to anticipate visual and even social events to help human beings sustain themselves.

Having spoken of a psychoanalytic conceptualization of self-organization, the theory of attribution, and research into social neuroscience, we turn our attention back to the central question that this article would like to address. Can we, as clinicians, truly put ourselves into the mindset of our colleagues and appreciate, and even agree with, the philosophies and methodologies of our fellow psychiatrists?

When we find ourselves busy in rote clinical practice, we believe the likelihood of intercollegiate mentalization is low; our ability to relate to our peers becomes strained. We ultimately do not practice in a vacuum. Psychiatrists, even those in a solo private practice, are ultimately part of a community of providers who, more or less, follow some emergent ‘standard of care.’ This can be a vague concept; but one that takes on a concrete form in the minds of certain clinicians and certainly in the setting of a medicolegal court. Yet, the psychiatrists that we know all have very stereotyped ways of practice. And at the heart of it, we all think that we are right.

We can use polypharmacy as an example. Imagine that you have a new patient intake, who tells you that they are transferring care from another psychiatrist. They inform you of their medication regimen. This patient presents on eight or more psychotropics. Many of us may have a visceral reaction at this point and, following the aforementioned attribution theory, we may ask ourselves what ‘quack’ of a doctor would do this. Yet some among us would think that a very competent psychopharmacologist was daring enough to use the full armamentarium of psychopharmacology to help this patient, who must be treatment refractory.

When speaking with such a patient, we would be quick to reflect on our own parsimonious use of medications. We would tell ourselves that we are responsible providers and would be quick to recommend discontinuation of medications. This would help us feel better about ourselves, and would of course assuage the ever-present medicolegal ‘big brother’ in our minds. It is through this very process that we affirm our self-identities. For if this patient’s previous physician was a bad psychiatrist, then we are a good psychiatrist. It is through this process that our clinical selves find confirmation.

We do not mean to reduce the complexities of human behavior to quick stereotypes. However, it is our belief that when confronted with clinical or philosophical disputes with our colleagues, the basic rules of human behavior will attempt to dissolve and override efforts at mentalization, collegiality, or interpersonal sensitivity. For to accept a clinical practice view that is different from ours would be akin to giving up the essence of our clinical identities. It could be compared to the fragmentation process of a vulnerable psyche when confronted with a reality that is at odds with preconceived notions and experiences.

While we may be able to appreciate the nuances and sensibilities of another provider, we believe it would be particularly difficult for most of us to actually attempt to practice in a fashion that is not congruent with our own organizers of experience. Whether or not our practice style is ‘perfect,’ it has worked for us. Social neuroscience and our understanding of the organization of the self would predict that we would hold onto our way of practice with all the mind’s defenses. Externalization, denial, and projection could all be called into action in this battle against existential fragmentation.

Do we seek to portray a clinical world where there is no hope for genuine modeling of clinical sensibilities to other psychiatrists? That is not our intention. Yet it seems that many of the theoretical frameworks that we subscribe to argue against this possibility. We would be hypocritical if we did not here state that our own theoretical frameworks are yet other examples of “organizers of experience.” Attribution theory, intersubjectivity, and social neuroscience are simply our ways of organizing the chaos of perceptions, ideas, and intricacies of human behavior.

If we accept that psychiatrists, like all human beings, are trapped in a subjective experience, then we can be more playful and flexible when interacting with our colleagues. We do not have to be as defensive of our practices and accusatory of others. If we practice daily according to some orthodoxy, then we color our experiences of the patient and of our colleagues’ ways of practice. We automatically start off on the wrong foot. And yet, to give up this orthodoxy would, by definition, be disorganizing and fragmenting to us. For as Nietzsche said, “truth is an illusion without which a certain species could not survive.”⁵

Dr. Khalafian practices full time as a general outpatient psychiatrist. He trained at the University of California, San Diego, for his psychiatric residency and currently works as a telepsychiatrist, serving an outpatient clinic population in northern California. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Badre and Dr. Khalafian have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Buirski P and Haglund P. Making sense together: The intersubjective approach to psychotherapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson; 2001.

2. Malle BF. Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. In Chadee D (ed.), Theories in social psychology. pp. 72-95. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.

3. Brown EC and Brune M. The role of prediction in social neuroscience. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 May 24;6:147. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00147.

4. Blom T et al. Predictions drive neural representations of visual events ahead of incoming sensory information. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020 Mar 31;117(13):7510-7515. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917777117.

5. Yalom I. The Gift of Therapy. Harper Perennial; 2002.

Psychiatrists practice in a wide array of ways. We approach our work and our patients with beliefs and preconceptions that develop over time. Our training has significant influence, though our own personalities and biases also affect our understanding.

Psychiatrists have philosophical lenses through which they see patients. We can reflect and see some standard archetypes. We are familiar with the reductionistic pharmacologist, the somatic treatment specialist, the psychodynamic ‘guru,’ and the medicolegally paralyzed practitioner. It is without judgment that we lay these out, for our very point is that we have these constituent parts within our own clinical identities. The intensity with which we subscribe to these clinical sensibilities could contribute to a biased orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy can be defined as an accepted theory that stems from an authoritative entity. This is a well-known phenomenon that continues to be visible. For example, one can quickly peruse psychodynamic literature to find one school of thought criticizing another. It is not without some confrontation and even interpersonal rifts that the lineage of psychoanalytic theory has evolved. This has always been of interest to us. A core facet of psychoanalysis is empathy, truly knowing the inner state of a different person. And yet, the very bastions of this clinical sensibility frequently resort to veiled attacks on those in their field who have opposing views. It then begs the question: If even enlightened institutions fail at a nonjudgmental approach toward their colleagues, what hope is there for the rest of us clinicians, mired in the thick of day-to-day clinical practice?

It is our contention that the odds are against us. Even the aforementioned critique of psychoanalytic orthodoxy is just another example of how we humans organize our experience. Even as we write an article in argument against unbridled critique, we find it difficult to do so without engaging in it. For to criticize another is to help shore up our own personal identities. This is especially the case when clinicians deal with issues that we feel strongly about. The human psyche has a need to organize its experience, as “our experience of ourselves is fundamental to how we operate in the world. Our subjective experience is the phenomenology of all that one might be aware of.”¹

In this vein, we would like to cite attribution theory. This is a view of human behavior within social psychology. The Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider, PhD, investigated “the domain of social interactions, wondering how people perceive each other in interaction and especially how they make sense of each other’s behavior.”² Attribution theory suggests that as humans organize our social interactions, we may make two basic assumptions. One is that our own behavior is highly affected by an environment that is beyond our control. The second is that when judging the behavior of others, we are more likely to attribute it to internal traits that they have. A classic example is automobile traffic. When we see someone driving erratically, we are more likely to blame them for being an inherently bad driver. However, if attention is called to our own driving, we are more likely to cite external factors such as rush hour, a bad driver around us, or a faulty vehicle.

We would like to reference one last model of human behavior. It has become customary within the field of neuroscience to view the brain as a predictive organ: “Theories of prediction in perception, action, and learning suggest that the brain serves to reduce the discrepancies between expectation and actual experience, i.e., by reducing the prediction error.”³ Perception itself has recently been described as a controlled hallucination, where the brain makes predictions of what it thinks it is about to see based on past experiences. Visual stimulus ultimately takes time to enter our eyes and be processed in the brain – “predictions would need to preactivate neural representations that would typically be driven by sensory input, before the actual arrival of that input.”⁴ It thus seems to be an inherent method of the brain to anticipate visual and even social events to help human beings sustain themselves.

Having spoken of a psychoanalytic conceptualization of self-organization, the theory of attribution, and research into social neuroscience, we turn our attention back to the central question that this article would like to address. Can we, as clinicians, truly put ourselves into the mindset of our colleagues and appreciate, and even agree with, the philosophies and methodologies of our fellow psychiatrists?

When we find ourselves busy in rote clinical practice, we believe the likelihood of intercollegiate mentalization is low; our ability to relate to our peers becomes strained. We ultimately do not practice in a vacuum. Psychiatrists, even those in a solo private practice, are ultimately part of a community of providers who, more or less, follow some emergent ‘standard of care.’ This can be a vague concept; but one that takes on a concrete form in the minds of certain clinicians and certainly in the setting of a medicolegal court. Yet, the psychiatrists that we know all have very stereotyped ways of practice. And at the heart of it, we all think that we are right.

We can use polypharmacy as an example. Imagine that you have a new patient intake, who tells you that they are transferring care from another psychiatrist. They inform you of their medication regimen. This patient presents on eight or more psychotropics. Many of us may have a visceral reaction at this point and, following the aforementioned attribution theory, we may ask ourselves what ‘quack’ of a doctor would do this. Yet some among us would think that a very competent psychopharmacologist was daring enough to use the full armamentarium of psychopharmacology to help this patient, who must be treatment refractory.

When speaking with such a patient, we would be quick to reflect on our own parsimonious use of medications. We would tell ourselves that we are responsible providers and would be quick to recommend discontinuation of medications. This would help us feel better about ourselves, and would of course assuage the ever-present medicolegal ‘big brother’ in our minds. It is through this very process that we affirm our self-identities. For if this patient’s previous physician was a bad psychiatrist, then we are a good psychiatrist. It is through this process that our clinical selves find confirmation.

We do not mean to reduce the complexities of human behavior to quick stereotypes. However, it is our belief that when confronted with clinical or philosophical disputes with our colleagues, the basic rules of human behavior will attempt to dissolve and override efforts at mentalization, collegiality, or interpersonal sensitivity. For to accept a clinical practice view that is different from ours would be akin to giving up the essence of our clinical identities. It could be compared to the fragmentation process of a vulnerable psyche when confronted with a reality that is at odds with preconceived notions and experiences.

While we may be able to appreciate the nuances and sensibilities of another provider, we believe it would be particularly difficult for most of us to actually attempt to practice in a fashion that is not congruent with our own organizers of experience. Whether or not our practice style is ‘perfect,’ it has worked for us. Social neuroscience and our understanding of the organization of the self would predict that we would hold onto our way of practice with all the mind’s defenses. Externalization, denial, and projection could all be called into action in this battle against existential fragmentation.

Do we seek to portray a clinical world where there is no hope for genuine modeling of clinical sensibilities to other psychiatrists? That is not our intention. Yet it seems that many of the theoretical frameworks that we subscribe to argue against this possibility. We would be hypocritical if we did not here state that our own theoretical frameworks are yet other examples of “organizers of experience.” Attribution theory, intersubjectivity, and social neuroscience are simply our ways of organizing the chaos of perceptions, ideas, and intricacies of human behavior.

If we accept that psychiatrists, like all human beings, are trapped in a subjective experience, then we can be more playful and flexible when interacting with our colleagues. We do not have to be as defensive of our practices and accusatory of others. If we practice daily according to some orthodoxy, then we color our experiences of the patient and of our colleagues’ ways of practice. We automatically start off on the wrong foot. And yet, to give up this orthodoxy would, by definition, be disorganizing and fragmenting to us. For as Nietzsche said, “truth is an illusion without which a certain species could not survive.”⁵

Dr. Khalafian practices full time as a general outpatient psychiatrist. He trained at the University of California, San Diego, for his psychiatric residency and currently works as a telepsychiatrist, serving an outpatient clinic population in northern California. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Badre and Dr. Khalafian have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Buirski P and Haglund P. Making sense together: The intersubjective approach to psychotherapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson; 2001.

2. Malle BF. Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. In Chadee D (ed.), Theories in social psychology. pp. 72-95. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.

3. Brown EC and Brune M. The role of prediction in social neuroscience. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 May 24;6:147. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00147.

4. Blom T et al. Predictions drive neural representations of visual events ahead of incoming sensory information. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020 Mar 31;117(13):7510-7515. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917777117.

5. Yalom I. The Gift of Therapy. Harper Perennial; 2002.