Depression

ACE inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk for schizophrenia and may affect psychiatric symptoms, new research suggests.

Investigators found individuals who carry a genetic variant associated with lower levels of the ACE gene and protein have increased liability to schizophrenia, suggesting that drugs that lower ACE levels or activity may do the same.

“Our findings warrant further investigation into the role of ACE in schizophrenia and closer monitoring by clinicians of individuals, especially those with schizophrenia, who may be on medication that lower ACE activity, such as ACE inhibitors,” Sonia Shah, PhD, Institute for Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.

The study was published online March 10, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Antihypertensives and mental illness

Hypertension is common in patients with psychiatric disorders and observational studies have reported associations between antihypertensive medication and these disorders, although the findings have been mixed.

Dr. Shah and colleagues estimated the potential of different antihypertensive drug classes on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.

In a two-sample Mendelian randomization study, they evaluated ties between a single-nucleotide variant and drug-target gene expression derived from expression quantitative trait loci data in blood (sample 1) and the SNV disease association from published case-control, genomewide association studies (sample 2).

The analyses included 40,675 patients with schizophrenia and 64,643 controls; 20,352 with bipolar disorder and 31,358 controls; and 135,458 with major depressive disorder and 344,901 controls.

The major finding was that a one standard deviation–lower expression of the ACE gene in blood was associated with lower systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.7-5.3), but also an increased risk of schizophrenia (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.38).
 

Could ACE inhibitors worsen symptoms or trigger episodes?

In their article, the researchers noted that, in most patients, onset of schizophrenia occurs in late adolescence or early adult life, ruling out ACE inhibitor treatment as a potential causal factor for most cases.

“However, if lower ACE levels play a causal role for schizophrenia risk, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that further lowering of ACE activity in existing patients could worsen symptoms or trigger a new episode,” they wrote.

Dr. Shah emphasized that evidence from genetic analyses alone is “not sufficient to justify changes in prescription guidelines.”

“Patients should not stop taking these medications if they are effective at controlling their blood pressure and they don’t suffer any adverse effects. But it would be reasonable to encourage greater pharmacovigilance,” she said in an interview.

“One way in which we are hoping to follow up these findings,” said Dr. Shah, “is to access electronic health record data for millions of individuals to investigate if there is evidence of increased rates of psychotic episodes in individuals who use ACE inhibitors, compared to other classes of blood pressure–lowering medication.”
 

Caution warranted

Reached for comment, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, noted that this is an “extremely complicated” study and urged caution in interpreting the results.

“Since most people develop schizophrenia earlier in life, before they usually develop problems with blood pressure, it’s not so much that these drugs might cause schizophrenia,” Dr. Sullivan said.

“But because of their effects on this particular gene, there’s a possibility that they might worsen symptoms or in somebody with borderline risk might cause them to develop symptoms later in life. This may apply to a relatively small number of people who develop symptoms of schizophrenia in their 40s and beyond,” he added.

That’s where “pharmacovigilance” comes into play, Dr. Sullivan said. “In other words, we should be looking at people we’re treating with these drugs to see – might we be tipping some of them into illness states that they otherwise wouldn’t experience?”

Support for the study was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and U.S. National Institute for Mental Health. Dr. Shah and Dr. Sullivan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ACE inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk for schizophrenia and may affect psychiatric symptoms, new research suggests.

Investigators found individuals who carry a genetic variant associated with lower levels of the ACE gene and protein have increased liability to schizophrenia, suggesting that drugs that lower ACE levels or activity may do the same.

“Our findings warrant further investigation into the role of ACE in schizophrenia and closer monitoring by clinicians of individuals, especially those with schizophrenia, who may be on medication that lower ACE activity, such as ACE inhibitors,” Sonia Shah, PhD, Institute for Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.

The study was published online March 10, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Antihypertensives and mental illness

Hypertension is common in patients with psychiatric disorders and observational studies have reported associations between antihypertensive medication and these disorders, although the findings have been mixed.

Dr. Shah and colleagues estimated the potential of different antihypertensive drug classes on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.

In a two-sample Mendelian randomization study, they evaluated ties between a single-nucleotide variant and drug-target gene expression derived from expression quantitative trait loci data in blood (sample 1) and the SNV disease association from published case-control, genomewide association studies (sample 2).

The analyses included 40,675 patients with schizophrenia and 64,643 controls; 20,352 with bipolar disorder and 31,358 controls; and 135,458 with major depressive disorder and 344,901 controls.

The major finding was that a one standard deviation–lower expression of the ACE gene in blood was associated with lower systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.7-5.3), but also an increased risk of schizophrenia (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.38).
 

Could ACE inhibitors worsen symptoms or trigger episodes?

In their article, the researchers noted that, in most patients, onset of schizophrenia occurs in late adolescence or early adult life, ruling out ACE inhibitor treatment as a potential causal factor for most cases.

“However, if lower ACE levels play a causal role for schizophrenia risk, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that further lowering of ACE activity in existing patients could worsen symptoms or trigger a new episode,” they wrote.

Dr. Shah emphasized that evidence from genetic analyses alone is “not sufficient to justify changes in prescription guidelines.”

“Patients should not stop taking these medications if they are effective at controlling their blood pressure and they don’t suffer any adverse effects. But it would be reasonable to encourage greater pharmacovigilance,” she said in an interview.

“One way in which we are hoping to follow up these findings,” said Dr. Shah, “is to access electronic health record data for millions of individuals to investigate if there is evidence of increased rates of psychotic episodes in individuals who use ACE inhibitors, compared to other classes of blood pressure–lowering medication.”
 

Caution warranted

Reached for comment, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, noted that this is an “extremely complicated” study and urged caution in interpreting the results.

“Since most people develop schizophrenia earlier in life, before they usually develop problems with blood pressure, it’s not so much that these drugs might cause schizophrenia,” Dr. Sullivan said.

“But because of their effects on this particular gene, there’s a possibility that they might worsen symptoms or in somebody with borderline risk might cause them to develop symptoms later in life. This may apply to a relatively small number of people who develop symptoms of schizophrenia in their 40s and beyond,” he added.

That’s where “pharmacovigilance” comes into play, Dr. Sullivan said. “In other words, we should be looking at people we’re treating with these drugs to see – might we be tipping some of them into illness states that they otherwise wouldn’t experience?”

Support for the study was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and U.S. National Institute for Mental Health. Dr. Shah and Dr. Sullivan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ACE inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk for schizophrenia and may affect psychiatric symptoms, new research suggests.

Investigators found individuals who carry a genetic variant associated with lower levels of the ACE gene and protein have increased liability to schizophrenia, suggesting that drugs that lower ACE levels or activity may do the same.

“Our findings warrant further investigation into the role of ACE in schizophrenia and closer monitoring by clinicians of individuals, especially those with schizophrenia, who may be on medication that lower ACE activity, such as ACE inhibitors,” Sonia Shah, PhD, Institute for Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, said in an interview.

The study was published online March 10, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Antihypertensives and mental illness

Hypertension is common in patients with psychiatric disorders and observational studies have reported associations between antihypertensive medication and these disorders, although the findings have been mixed.

Dr. Shah and colleagues estimated the potential of different antihypertensive drug classes on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.

In a two-sample Mendelian randomization study, they evaluated ties between a single-nucleotide variant and drug-target gene expression derived from expression quantitative trait loci data in blood (sample 1) and the SNV disease association from published case-control, genomewide association studies (sample 2).

The analyses included 40,675 patients with schizophrenia and 64,643 controls; 20,352 with bipolar disorder and 31,358 controls; and 135,458 with major depressive disorder and 344,901 controls.

The major finding was that a one standard deviation–lower expression of the ACE gene in blood was associated with lower systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.7-5.3), but also an increased risk of schizophrenia (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.38).
 

Could ACE inhibitors worsen symptoms or trigger episodes?

In their article, the researchers noted that, in most patients, onset of schizophrenia occurs in late adolescence or early adult life, ruling out ACE inhibitor treatment as a potential causal factor for most cases.

“However, if lower ACE levels play a causal role for schizophrenia risk, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that further lowering of ACE activity in existing patients could worsen symptoms or trigger a new episode,” they wrote.

Dr. Shah emphasized that evidence from genetic analyses alone is “not sufficient to justify changes in prescription guidelines.”

“Patients should not stop taking these medications if they are effective at controlling their blood pressure and they don’t suffer any adverse effects. But it would be reasonable to encourage greater pharmacovigilance,” she said in an interview.

“One way in which we are hoping to follow up these findings,” said Dr. Shah, “is to access electronic health record data for millions of individuals to investigate if there is evidence of increased rates of psychotic episodes in individuals who use ACE inhibitors, compared to other classes of blood pressure–lowering medication.”
 

Caution warranted

Reached for comment, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, noted that this is an “extremely complicated” study and urged caution in interpreting the results.

“Since most people develop schizophrenia earlier in life, before they usually develop problems with blood pressure, it’s not so much that these drugs might cause schizophrenia,” Dr. Sullivan said.

“But because of their effects on this particular gene, there’s a possibility that they might worsen symptoms or in somebody with borderline risk might cause them to develop symptoms later in life. This may apply to a relatively small number of people who develop symptoms of schizophrenia in their 40s and beyond,” he added.

That’s where “pharmacovigilance” comes into play, Dr. Sullivan said. “In other words, we should be looking at people we’re treating with these drugs to see – might we be tipping some of them into illness states that they otherwise wouldn’t experience?”

Support for the study was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and U.S. National Institute for Mental Health. Dr. Shah and Dr. Sullivan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.

Bhupi/Getty Images

“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.

Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.

At-risk kids are falling through the cracks

Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.

“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”

In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.

Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.

Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.

The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.

Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.

“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”

Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.

Robust prevention strategies needed

Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.

The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.

“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”

Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.

Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.

It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.

Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.

Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,

Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.

Bhupi/Getty Images

“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.

Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.

At-risk kids are falling through the cracks

Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.

“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”

In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.

Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.

Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.

The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.

Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.

“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”

Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.

Robust prevention strategies needed

Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.

The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.

“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”

Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.

Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.

It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.

Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.

Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,

Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.

Bhupi/Getty Images

“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.

Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.

At-risk kids are falling through the cracks

Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.

“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”

In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.

Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.

Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.

The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.

Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.

“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”

Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.

Robust prevention strategies needed

Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.

The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.

“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”

Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.

Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.

It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.

Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.

Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

An eye-opening moment during March 7’s Meghan Markle/Prince Harry interview with Oprah Winfrey was Markle’s admission that, before the royal couple moved from the U.K., she was suicidal and had nowhere to turn for help.

For health care practitioners, this has resurfaced the debate over universal suicidality screening and discussion about what should happen when patients screen positive.

The American Psychiatric Association reports suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, but the second leading cause of death in people age 10-34 years old.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2019, suicide rates dropped for the first time in 14 years. However, it is widely expected that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated isolation, loneliness, and stress, the next round of data will show a surge in suicide deaths.

Individuals’ mental health “has been deteriorating” since COVID-19, said Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health.

“I can see it in my office. People who didn’t necessarily complain about anxiety and depression before or who had been stable for many years are decompensating now,” Dr. De Faria said in an interview.

Although other parts of the interview may have been controversial, said Dr. De Faria, Markle’s disclosure has opened up a much-needed discussion.

“I’m all for people talking about mental health, and I commend [Markle] for sharing her struggle and putting it out there,” she added.

In a perfect world, she noted, there would be universal suicide screening by all medical professionals.

However, Dr. De Faria, associate clinical professor of psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, acknowledged that from a resource standpoint this is not a pragmatic solution.

Primary care physicians are often the frontline defense for suicide prevention, noted Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder and chief organizer of the Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline exclusively for doctors staffed by volunteer psychiatrists.   

“I believe our general practitioner colleagues, our family medicine colleagues are the ones who are going to be seeing the majority of mental health concerns or illnesses because of the stigma that is often there from seeing a psychiatrist,” Dr. Masood said in an interview.

Dr. De Faria noted that the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) for mental health offers a simple screen that includes two key questions. It asks: Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?

• Little interest or pleasure in doing things.
• Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.

However, both Dr. De Faria and Dr. Masood emphasized that individualized follow-up questions and follow-up care are equally important.

Unlike Dr. De Faria, who prefers universal screening but understands the challenges of implementing it, Dr. Masood favors targeted screening.

“For physicians, the whole point of what we do is to save lives. To talk to somebody about the complete opposite and to ask, ‘Are you planning on ending your life?’ is very jarring. But for the patient, that may be their only outlet. A primary care provider may be the only professional that they talk to about their mental health,” said Dr. Masood.

Patients can easily say “no” to suicidal ideation questions from a general screen, but targeted, probing questions let patients know that they’re being heard and seen beyond their physical examination, she added.

She also suggested that clinicians ask open-ended questions of those patients who are struggling.

Dr. Masood noted that having a plan in place before screening a patient is especially key.

“I’d argue that one of the subconscious reasons why so many doctors do not ask the question [about suicidality] is because if you ask it, you have to be ready for the answer and to know what you’d do,” she said.

All primary care physicians should have “mental health professionals as resources in your back pocket” in order to have a referral ready to give to patients in need, she said.

“Outside of your clinic time, have a rapport with your local psychiatrist or therapist and know where to send someone who is suicidal,” Dr. Masood said. “Know what is in your local area so you’ll already know how to implement your plan.”

Dr. Masood also recommended:

• Informing staff about protocols for patients with suicidal thoughts who need to go to the hospital for evaluation.
• Creating a safe space in the clinic/office, such as an unused exam room, where patients can wait for next steps.
• Having staff inform a patient’s emergency contact about the situation.
• Trying for a “warm handoff,” where the emergency contact takes the patient to the nearest crisis center and having staff call ahead to let them know to expect the patient.
• If the patient has no emergency contact, following your state’s involuntary crisis response protocol, which involves calling 911 for emergency services.  

In addition, the APA’s suicide prevention page includes a long list of helpful resources for patients, families, and physicians.

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

An eye-opening moment during March 7’s Meghan Markle/Prince Harry interview with Oprah Winfrey was Markle’s admission that, before the royal couple moved from the U.K., she was suicidal and had nowhere to turn for help.

For health care practitioners, this has resurfaced the debate over universal suicidality screening and discussion about what should happen when patients screen positive.

The American Psychiatric Association reports suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, but the second leading cause of death in people age 10-34 years old.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2019, suicide rates dropped for the first time in 14 years. However, it is widely expected that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated isolation, loneliness, and stress, the next round of data will show a surge in suicide deaths.

Individuals’ mental health “has been deteriorating” since COVID-19, said Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health.

“I can see it in my office. People who didn’t necessarily complain about anxiety and depression before or who had been stable for many years are decompensating now,” Dr. De Faria said in an interview.

Although other parts of the interview may have been controversial, said Dr. De Faria, Markle’s disclosure has opened up a much-needed discussion.

“I’m all for people talking about mental health, and I commend [Markle] for sharing her struggle and putting it out there,” she added.

In a perfect world, she noted, there would be universal suicide screening by all medical professionals.

However, Dr. De Faria, associate clinical professor of psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, acknowledged that from a resource standpoint this is not a pragmatic solution.

Primary care physicians are often the frontline defense for suicide prevention, noted Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder and chief organizer of the Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline exclusively for doctors staffed by volunteer psychiatrists.   

“I believe our general practitioner colleagues, our family medicine colleagues are the ones who are going to be seeing the majority of mental health concerns or illnesses because of the stigma that is often there from seeing a psychiatrist,” Dr. Masood said in an interview.

Dr. De Faria noted that the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) for mental health offers a simple screen that includes two key questions. It asks: Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?

• Little interest or pleasure in doing things.
• Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.

However, both Dr. De Faria and Dr. Masood emphasized that individualized follow-up questions and follow-up care are equally important.

Unlike Dr. De Faria, who prefers universal screening but understands the challenges of implementing it, Dr. Masood favors targeted screening.

“For physicians, the whole point of what we do is to save lives. To talk to somebody about the complete opposite and to ask, ‘Are you planning on ending your life?’ is very jarring. But for the patient, that may be their only outlet. A primary care provider may be the only professional that they talk to about their mental health,” said Dr. Masood.

Patients can easily say “no” to suicidal ideation questions from a general screen, but targeted, probing questions let patients know that they’re being heard and seen beyond their physical examination, she added.

She also suggested that clinicians ask open-ended questions of those patients who are struggling.

Dr. Masood noted that having a plan in place before screening a patient is especially key.

“I’d argue that one of the subconscious reasons why so many doctors do not ask the question [about suicidality] is because if you ask it, you have to be ready for the answer and to know what you’d do,” she said.

All primary care physicians should have “mental health professionals as resources in your back pocket” in order to have a referral ready to give to patients in need, she said.

“Outside of your clinic time, have a rapport with your local psychiatrist or therapist and know where to send someone who is suicidal,” Dr. Masood said. “Know what is in your local area so you’ll already know how to implement your plan.”

Dr. Masood also recommended:

• Informing staff about protocols for patients with suicidal thoughts who need to go to the hospital for evaluation.
• Creating a safe space in the clinic/office, such as an unused exam room, where patients can wait for next steps.
• Having staff inform a patient’s emergency contact about the situation.
• Trying for a “warm handoff,” where the emergency contact takes the patient to the nearest crisis center and having staff call ahead to let them know to expect the patient.
• If the patient has no emergency contact, following your state’s involuntary crisis response protocol, which involves calling 911 for emergency services.  

In addition, the APA’s suicide prevention page includes a long list of helpful resources for patients, families, and physicians.

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

An eye-opening moment during March 7’s Meghan Markle/Prince Harry interview with Oprah Winfrey was Markle’s admission that, before the royal couple moved from the U.K., she was suicidal and had nowhere to turn for help.

For health care practitioners, this has resurfaced the debate over universal suicidality screening and discussion about what should happen when patients screen positive.

The American Psychiatric Association reports suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, but the second leading cause of death in people age 10-34 years old.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2019, suicide rates dropped for the first time in 14 years. However, it is widely expected that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated isolation, loneliness, and stress, the next round of data will show a surge in suicide deaths.

Individuals’ mental health “has been deteriorating” since COVID-19, said Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health.

“I can see it in my office. People who didn’t necessarily complain about anxiety and depression before or who had been stable for many years are decompensating now,” Dr. De Faria said in an interview.

Although other parts of the interview may have been controversial, said Dr. De Faria, Markle’s disclosure has opened up a much-needed discussion.

“I’m all for people talking about mental health, and I commend [Markle] for sharing her struggle and putting it out there,” she added.

In a perfect world, she noted, there would be universal suicide screening by all medical professionals.

However, Dr. De Faria, associate clinical professor of psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, acknowledged that from a resource standpoint this is not a pragmatic solution.

Primary care physicians are often the frontline defense for suicide prevention, noted Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder and chief organizer of the Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline exclusively for doctors staffed by volunteer psychiatrists.   

“I believe our general practitioner colleagues, our family medicine colleagues are the ones who are going to be seeing the majority of mental health concerns or illnesses because of the stigma that is often there from seeing a psychiatrist,” Dr. Masood said in an interview.

Dr. De Faria noted that the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) for mental health offers a simple screen that includes two key questions. It asks: Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?

• Little interest or pleasure in doing things.
• Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.

However, both Dr. De Faria and Dr. Masood emphasized that individualized follow-up questions and follow-up care are equally important.

Unlike Dr. De Faria, who prefers universal screening but understands the challenges of implementing it, Dr. Masood favors targeted screening.

“For physicians, the whole point of what we do is to save lives. To talk to somebody about the complete opposite and to ask, ‘Are you planning on ending your life?’ is very jarring. But for the patient, that may be their only outlet. A primary care provider may be the only professional that they talk to about their mental health,” said Dr. Masood.

Patients can easily say “no” to suicidal ideation questions from a general screen, but targeted, probing questions let patients know that they’re being heard and seen beyond their physical examination, she added.

She also suggested that clinicians ask open-ended questions of those patients who are struggling.

Dr. Masood noted that having a plan in place before screening a patient is especially key.

“I’d argue that one of the subconscious reasons why so many doctors do not ask the question [about suicidality] is because if you ask it, you have to be ready for the answer and to know what you’d do,” she said.

All primary care physicians should have “mental health professionals as resources in your back pocket” in order to have a referral ready to give to patients in need, she said.

“Outside of your clinic time, have a rapport with your local psychiatrist or therapist and know where to send someone who is suicidal,” Dr. Masood said. “Know what is in your local area so you’ll already know how to implement your plan.”

Dr. Masood also recommended:

• Informing staff about protocols for patients with suicidal thoughts who need to go to the hospital for evaluation.
• Creating a safe space in the clinic/office, such as an unused exam room, where patients can wait for next steps.
• Having staff inform a patient’s emergency contact about the situation.
• Trying for a “warm handoff,” where the emergency contact takes the patient to the nearest crisis center and having staff call ahead to let them know to expect the patient.
• If the patient has no emergency contact, following your state’s involuntary crisis response protocol, which involves calling 911 for emergency services.  

In addition, the APA’s suicide prevention page includes a long list of helpful resources for patients, families, and physicians.

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

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

Bremelanotide, a Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women, may be of limited use, suggests Glen I. Spielmans, PhD, in a new analysis paper.

Dr. Spielmans, professor of psychology at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minn., examined data from the FDA application for bremelanotide, clinicaltrials.gov entries for two phase 3 trials of the drug, and a 2019 article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that described results from the 24-week trials.

In Dr. Speilman’s analysis, which was published online March 7 in the Journal of Sex Research, he notes that 42.1% of trial participants who received bremelanotide did not complete the trial, compared with 20.48% of participants who received placebo.

Of those who completed the study, 87.22% who received placebo wanted to continue treatment in an open-label extension, compared with 69.97% who received bremelanotide, he wrote.

Women “should be aware of the small degree of bremelanotide’s efficacy, that the protocol-specified outcomes of bremelanotide are mostly unknown, and that participants would rather take a placebo than bremelanotide,” Dr. Spielmans said.

Anita H. Clayton, MD, an author of the Obstetrics & Gynecology paper addressed in Dr. Spielmans’ analysis, says the Journal of Sex Research article does not provide new information and is a disservice to women because it questions accurate scientific data.

Measuring outcomes in HSDD is an evolving field, Dr. Clayton, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in an interview. Initial FDA guidance relied on satisfying sexual events as an outcome measure, but this measure was derived from erectile dysfunction studies and is not necessarily adequate for assessing HSDD, she said. The FDA and drug developers agreed to use the desire subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-D) as a coprimary outcome measure instead, she noted.
 

Dr. Spielmans’ critique of Obstetrics & Gynecology paper

The article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reporting bremelanotide trial results was noteworthy, although the various issues involved can be seen in reports about other drug trials, Dr. Spielmans said in an interview.

“It is well-established that journal articles reporting clinical trial data overstate benefits and understate harms,” he continued. In this case, “the very incomplete data reporting, reliance on many post-hoc measures of questionable validity, hiding the concerning number of dropouts due to adverse events, and putting a positive spin on efficacy and tolerability is both remarkable and highly problematic,” Dr. Spielmans said.
 

Dr. Clayton’s reaction

Data about dropout rates due to adverse events have been reported and presented at national meetings, she said in an interview. In addition, a questionnaire found that bremelanotide was superior to placebo in terms of patients feeling that the treatment had provided clinically meaningful benefit, Dr. Clayton said.

The available information enables patients to make informed treatment decisions, Dr. Clayton continued. “There is really this sexist attitude of women needing protection from their own decisions,” she said.
 

Diagnosing and treating HSDD

Eight of 11 efficacy outcomes in the clinicaltrials.gov study protocols for bremelanotide were not reported in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article in a way that was consistent with the protocols, Dr. Spielmans said. Changing a coprimary outcome to the key secondary outcome “occurred over a year after the trials had begun,” and the authors of the journal article “did not mention that this change occurred,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

For the coprimary outcome measures of mean change on FSFI-D and Female Sexual Distress Scale–Desire/Arousal/Orgasm #13, “bremelanotide offers modest benefits over placebo,” Dr. Spielmans reported.

In addition to outlining his concerns about transparency in the reporting of trial data and raising questions about the outcome measures used in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article, Dr. Spielmans wrote that the diagnosis of HSDD is problematic.

“The lack of specifying symptom duration, questionable validity for the lack of sexual fantasies as a diagnostic criterion, difficulty in disentangling individual sexual problems from relational problems, and the failure to consider cultural influence (including the pressure on women to satisfy the sexual desires of their male partners) in the experience of sexuality all render HSDD as a problematic entity,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders replaced HSDD and female sexual arousal disorder with the combined condition female sexual interest/arousal disorder. HSDD is in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases and can be applied to men or women, Dr. Spielmans said.
 

FDA acknowledged HSDD as an unmet medical need

Dr. Clayton pointed out that HSDD was described decades ago and the FDA acknowledged it as an unmet medical need, and she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the hypoactive sexual desire disorder appears with quotation marks around it in the title of Dr. Spielmans’ article. This way of presenting HSDD indicates that “the author has no concept of sexual health or sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Clayton said. “Basically this is sort of a dramatic tool, I think, to act like this is not a real disorder,” she added.

Carl Spana, PhD, CEO and president of Palatin Technologies, the developer of bremelanotide, defined the article in the Journal of Sex Research as a “retrospective meta-analysis, and not a re-analysis of the data.

“As a meta-analysis, it is open to various interpretations and reflects the author’s interpretations, which appear to have clear biases,” Dr. Spana said in an interview. “We believe several of this author’s interpretations are contrary to the FDA’s positive assessment that led to Vyleesi’s approval as a safe and effective treatment for women suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder.”

The author is unaware of the validation that was conducted at the direction of the FDA to establish clinically meaningful cutoffs for patient-reported outcomes and to establish metrics that define clinical benefit, Dr. Spana said

“Vyleesi was approved by the FDA after a thorough analysis of data from two well-controlled phase 3 clinical studies and multiple clinical and preclinical safety studies,” he said. “The analyses in the New Drug Application were prespecified and conducted according to a statistical analysis plan that the sponsor and FDA agreed to prior to database lock.”

Dr. Spielmans disclosed holdings in Vanguard Healthcare, a mutual fund that invests in pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Clayton has received financial support from Palatin and AMAG Pharmaceuticals, the companies that developed bremelanotide, in previous years.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Bremelanotide, a Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women, may be of limited use, suggests Glen I. Spielmans, PhD, in a new analysis paper.

Dr. Spielmans, professor of psychology at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minn., examined data from the FDA application for bremelanotide, clinicaltrials.gov entries for two phase 3 trials of the drug, and a 2019 article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that described results from the 24-week trials.

In Dr. Speilman’s analysis, which was published online March 7 in the Journal of Sex Research, he notes that 42.1% of trial participants who received bremelanotide did not complete the trial, compared with 20.48% of participants who received placebo.

Of those who completed the study, 87.22% who received placebo wanted to continue treatment in an open-label extension, compared with 69.97% who received bremelanotide, he wrote.

Women “should be aware of the small degree of bremelanotide’s efficacy, that the protocol-specified outcomes of bremelanotide are mostly unknown, and that participants would rather take a placebo than bremelanotide,” Dr. Spielmans said.

Anita H. Clayton, MD, an author of the Obstetrics & Gynecology paper addressed in Dr. Spielmans’ analysis, says the Journal of Sex Research article does not provide new information and is a disservice to women because it questions accurate scientific data.

Measuring outcomes in HSDD is an evolving field, Dr. Clayton, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in an interview. Initial FDA guidance relied on satisfying sexual events as an outcome measure, but this measure was derived from erectile dysfunction studies and is not necessarily adequate for assessing HSDD, she said. The FDA and drug developers agreed to use the desire subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-D) as a coprimary outcome measure instead, she noted.
 

Dr. Spielmans’ critique of Obstetrics & Gynecology paper

The article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reporting bremelanotide trial results was noteworthy, although the various issues involved can be seen in reports about other drug trials, Dr. Spielmans said in an interview.

“It is well-established that journal articles reporting clinical trial data overstate benefits and understate harms,” he continued. In this case, “the very incomplete data reporting, reliance on many post-hoc measures of questionable validity, hiding the concerning number of dropouts due to adverse events, and putting a positive spin on efficacy and tolerability is both remarkable and highly problematic,” Dr. Spielmans said.
 

Dr. Clayton’s reaction

Data about dropout rates due to adverse events have been reported and presented at national meetings, she said in an interview. In addition, a questionnaire found that bremelanotide was superior to placebo in terms of patients feeling that the treatment had provided clinically meaningful benefit, Dr. Clayton said.

The available information enables patients to make informed treatment decisions, Dr. Clayton continued. “There is really this sexist attitude of women needing protection from their own decisions,” she said.
 

Diagnosing and treating HSDD

Eight of 11 efficacy outcomes in the clinicaltrials.gov study protocols for bremelanotide were not reported in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article in a way that was consistent with the protocols, Dr. Spielmans said. Changing a coprimary outcome to the key secondary outcome “occurred over a year after the trials had begun,” and the authors of the journal article “did not mention that this change occurred,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

For the coprimary outcome measures of mean change on FSFI-D and Female Sexual Distress Scale–Desire/Arousal/Orgasm #13, “bremelanotide offers modest benefits over placebo,” Dr. Spielmans reported.

In addition to outlining his concerns about transparency in the reporting of trial data and raising questions about the outcome measures used in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article, Dr. Spielmans wrote that the diagnosis of HSDD is problematic.

“The lack of specifying symptom duration, questionable validity for the lack of sexual fantasies as a diagnostic criterion, difficulty in disentangling individual sexual problems from relational problems, and the failure to consider cultural influence (including the pressure on women to satisfy the sexual desires of their male partners) in the experience of sexuality all render HSDD as a problematic entity,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders replaced HSDD and female sexual arousal disorder with the combined condition female sexual interest/arousal disorder. HSDD is in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases and can be applied to men or women, Dr. Spielmans said.
 

FDA acknowledged HSDD as an unmet medical need

Dr. Clayton pointed out that HSDD was described decades ago and the FDA acknowledged it as an unmet medical need, and she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the hypoactive sexual desire disorder appears with quotation marks around it in the title of Dr. Spielmans’ article. This way of presenting HSDD indicates that “the author has no concept of sexual health or sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Clayton said. “Basically this is sort of a dramatic tool, I think, to act like this is not a real disorder,” she added.

Carl Spana, PhD, CEO and president of Palatin Technologies, the developer of bremelanotide, defined the article in the Journal of Sex Research as a “retrospective meta-analysis, and not a re-analysis of the data.

“As a meta-analysis, it is open to various interpretations and reflects the author’s interpretations, which appear to have clear biases,” Dr. Spana said in an interview. “We believe several of this author’s interpretations are contrary to the FDA’s positive assessment that led to Vyleesi’s approval as a safe and effective treatment for women suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder.”

The author is unaware of the validation that was conducted at the direction of the FDA to establish clinically meaningful cutoffs for patient-reported outcomes and to establish metrics that define clinical benefit, Dr. Spana said

“Vyleesi was approved by the FDA after a thorough analysis of data from two well-controlled phase 3 clinical studies and multiple clinical and preclinical safety studies,” he said. “The analyses in the New Drug Application were prespecified and conducted according to a statistical analysis plan that the sponsor and FDA agreed to prior to database lock.”

Dr. Spielmans disclosed holdings in Vanguard Healthcare, a mutual fund that invests in pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Clayton has received financial support from Palatin and AMAG Pharmaceuticals, the companies that developed bremelanotide, in previous years.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Bremelanotide, a Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women, may be of limited use, suggests Glen I. Spielmans, PhD, in a new analysis paper.

Dr. Spielmans, professor of psychology at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minn., examined data from the FDA application for bremelanotide, clinicaltrials.gov entries for two phase 3 trials of the drug, and a 2019 article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that described results from the 24-week trials.

In Dr. Speilman’s analysis, which was published online March 7 in the Journal of Sex Research, he notes that 42.1% of trial participants who received bremelanotide did not complete the trial, compared with 20.48% of participants who received placebo.

Of those who completed the study, 87.22% who received placebo wanted to continue treatment in an open-label extension, compared with 69.97% who received bremelanotide, he wrote.

Women “should be aware of the small degree of bremelanotide’s efficacy, that the protocol-specified outcomes of bremelanotide are mostly unknown, and that participants would rather take a placebo than bremelanotide,” Dr. Spielmans said.

Anita H. Clayton, MD, an author of the Obstetrics & Gynecology paper addressed in Dr. Spielmans’ analysis, says the Journal of Sex Research article does not provide new information and is a disservice to women because it questions accurate scientific data.

Measuring outcomes in HSDD is an evolving field, Dr. Clayton, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in an interview. Initial FDA guidance relied on satisfying sexual events as an outcome measure, but this measure was derived from erectile dysfunction studies and is not necessarily adequate for assessing HSDD, she said. The FDA and drug developers agreed to use the desire subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-D) as a coprimary outcome measure instead, she noted.
 

Dr. Spielmans’ critique of Obstetrics & Gynecology paper

The article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reporting bremelanotide trial results was noteworthy, although the various issues involved can be seen in reports about other drug trials, Dr. Spielmans said in an interview.

“It is well-established that journal articles reporting clinical trial data overstate benefits and understate harms,” he continued. In this case, “the very incomplete data reporting, reliance on many post-hoc measures of questionable validity, hiding the concerning number of dropouts due to adverse events, and putting a positive spin on efficacy and tolerability is both remarkable and highly problematic,” Dr. Spielmans said.
 

Dr. Clayton’s reaction

Data about dropout rates due to adverse events have been reported and presented at national meetings, she said in an interview. In addition, a questionnaire found that bremelanotide was superior to placebo in terms of patients feeling that the treatment had provided clinically meaningful benefit, Dr. Clayton said.

The available information enables patients to make informed treatment decisions, Dr. Clayton continued. “There is really this sexist attitude of women needing protection from their own decisions,” she said.
 

Diagnosing and treating HSDD

Eight of 11 efficacy outcomes in the clinicaltrials.gov study protocols for bremelanotide were not reported in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article in a way that was consistent with the protocols, Dr. Spielmans said. Changing a coprimary outcome to the key secondary outcome “occurred over a year after the trials had begun,” and the authors of the journal article “did not mention that this change occurred,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

For the coprimary outcome measures of mean change on FSFI-D and Female Sexual Distress Scale–Desire/Arousal/Orgasm #13, “bremelanotide offers modest benefits over placebo,” Dr. Spielmans reported.

In addition to outlining his concerns about transparency in the reporting of trial data and raising questions about the outcome measures used in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article, Dr. Spielmans wrote that the diagnosis of HSDD is problematic.

“The lack of specifying symptom duration, questionable validity for the lack of sexual fantasies as a diagnostic criterion, difficulty in disentangling individual sexual problems from relational problems, and the failure to consider cultural influence (including the pressure on women to satisfy the sexual desires of their male partners) in the experience of sexuality all render HSDD as a problematic entity,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders replaced HSDD and female sexual arousal disorder with the combined condition female sexual interest/arousal disorder. HSDD is in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases and can be applied to men or women, Dr. Spielmans said.
 

FDA acknowledged HSDD as an unmet medical need

Dr. Clayton pointed out that HSDD was described decades ago and the FDA acknowledged it as an unmet medical need, and she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the hypoactive sexual desire disorder appears with quotation marks around it in the title of Dr. Spielmans’ article. This way of presenting HSDD indicates that “the author has no concept of sexual health or sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Clayton said. “Basically this is sort of a dramatic tool, I think, to act like this is not a real disorder,” she added.

Carl Spana, PhD, CEO and president of Palatin Technologies, the developer of bremelanotide, defined the article in the Journal of Sex Research as a “retrospective meta-analysis, and not a re-analysis of the data.

“As a meta-analysis, it is open to various interpretations and reflects the author’s interpretations, which appear to have clear biases,” Dr. Spana said in an interview. “We believe several of this author’s interpretations are contrary to the FDA’s positive assessment that led to Vyleesi’s approval as a safe and effective treatment for women suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder.”

The author is unaware of the validation that was conducted at the direction of the FDA to establish clinically meaningful cutoffs for patient-reported outcomes and to establish metrics that define clinical benefit, Dr. Spana said

“Vyleesi was approved by the FDA after a thorough analysis of data from two well-controlled phase 3 clinical studies and multiple clinical and preclinical safety studies,” he said. “The analyses in the New Drug Application were prespecified and conducted according to a statistical analysis plan that the sponsor and FDA agreed to prior to database lock.”

Dr. Spielmans disclosed holdings in Vanguard Healthcare, a mutual fund that invests in pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Clayton has received financial support from Palatin and AMAG Pharmaceuticals, the companies that developed bremelanotide, in previous years.

jremaly@mdedge.com

An antiseizure medication appears to reduce anhedonia in patients with depression via a novel mechanism that may offer a new therapeutic target for the disorder, new research suggests.

Results of a small, randomized trial show those who received ezogabine (Potiga) experienced a significant reduction in key measures of depression and anhedonia versus placebo.

Participants in the treatment group also showed a trend toward increased response to reward anticipation on functional MRI (fMRI), compared with those treated with placebo, although the effect did not reach statistical significance.

“Our study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that a drug affecting this kind of ion channel in the brain can improve depression and anhedonia in patients,” senior investigator James Murrough, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a press release.

“Targeting this channel represents a completely different mechanism of action than any currently available antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Murrough, who is also director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at Mount Sinai.

The study was published online March 3 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Need for a novel target

“One of the main issues in treating depression is that many of our current antidepressants have similar mechanisms of action,” Dr. Murrough said in an interview. “Once a patient hasn’t responded to currently available agents, it’s hard think of new medications to fill that need.”

This need for a novel target motivated Dr. Murrough and associates to research the KCNQ2/3 potassium channel, which has not been previously studied as a therapeutic target for depression.

The KCNQ2/3 channel controls brain cell excitability and function by controlling the flow of the electrical charge across the cell membrane in the form of potassium ions, Dr. Murrough explained.

Previous research using a chronic social defeat model of depression in mice showed changes in the KCNQ2/3 channel. “This was key to determining whether a mouse showed depressive behavior in the context of stress, or whether the mice were resistant or resilient to stress,” he said.

Mice resistant to stress showed increased markers in brain regions associated with reward, while the less resilient mice showed excessive excitability and dysfunction. Dysfunction in the brain’s reward system leads to anhedonia, a “core feature” of depressive disorders.

This inspired Dr. Murrough’s group to identify ezogabine, a drug that acts on this channel.

“Our research was less about the medication itself and more a proof of concept study to see if targeting the KCNQ channel might hold potential for addressing depressive symptoms,” Dr. Murrough said
 

Nonsignificant trend

The researchers studied 45 adults diagnosed with depression who exhibited significant anhedonia and at least moderate illness severity.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ezogabine (n = 21, mean age 44 years at enrollment, 28.3% male) or placebo (n = 24, mean age 39 years at enrollment, 50% male). At baseline and following treatment, participants completed the incentive flanker test under fMRI conditions to model brain activity during anticipation of a reward. In addition, clinical measures of depression and anhedonia were assessed at weekly visits.

The study groups did not differ significantly in performance accuracy during the fMRI task at baseline or following treatment. The table below summarizes the percentage of errors in each group, with standard deviation.

Heterogeneous condition

In contrast, there were notable improvements from baseline to the final outcome visit in clinical measures of depression and anhedonia in the ezogabine group, compared with the placebo group. Mean (SD) differences in depression scores, based on the MADRS (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) from baseline to endpoint as follows: mean difference, –7.9 (3.0); effect size, 0.76; response rate, 61.9% (ezogabine) and 37.5% (placebo); remission rate: 38.1% (ezogabine) and 20.8% (placebo)

Compared with placebo, there were also large improvements in hedonic capacity, as measured by the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale and the anticipatory subscale of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (t, –4.1; df, 212; P < .001 and t, 3.4; df, 213; P < .001, respectively).

Compared with placebo, ezogabine was associated with “significant benefit” in global illness severity and improvement (Clinical Global Impression–Severity: t, –2.2; df, 214; P = .026 and CGI-Improvement: t, –2.9; d, 214; P = .004, respectively).

Ezogabine was well tolerated. Dizziness and headache were the most common adverse events.

Depression is a “heterogeneous condition” with a single diagnosis encompassing a “large, multifaceted” array of symptoms, Dr. Murrough noted. A growing body of research is focusing on specific components as potential treatment targets. “Our study looked specifically at patients with a diagnosis of depression but high scores on the anhedonia scale and we found that boosting the function of the KCNQ2/3 channel may have a beneficial antidepressant effect by improving anhedonia.”
 

Potential gain

In a comment, Alan Schatzberg, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that “anytime there’s a new treatment with a new mechanism of action for a given condition, there’s a potential gain for the field.”

Dr. Schatzberg, who was not involved with the study, said that ezogabine, with its “potentially new mechanism of action, seems to have an effect and reasonable safety and could be important for patients who may not respond to traditional medications. It might also be important for all sorts of patients, depending on findings of later trials.”

Dr. Murrough said that ezogabine in still in “early stages” of research. “We hope that future studies will look at other agents that would also affect this channel,” he added.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Additional funding was provided by the Friedman Brain Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience, a component of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Dr. Murrough is an inventor of a pending patent application for the use of ezogabine and other KCNQ channel openers to treat depression and related disorders. Dr. Schatzberg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antiseizure medication appears to reduce anhedonia in patients with depression via a novel mechanism that may offer a new therapeutic target for the disorder, new research suggests.

Results of a small, randomized trial show those who received ezogabine (Potiga) experienced a significant reduction in key measures of depression and anhedonia versus placebo.

Participants in the treatment group also showed a trend toward increased response to reward anticipation on functional MRI (fMRI), compared with those treated with placebo, although the effect did not reach statistical significance.

“Our study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that a drug affecting this kind of ion channel in the brain can improve depression and anhedonia in patients,” senior investigator James Murrough, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a press release.

“Targeting this channel represents a completely different mechanism of action than any currently available antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Murrough, who is also director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at Mount Sinai.

The study was published online March 3 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Need for a novel target

“One of the main issues in treating depression is that many of our current antidepressants have similar mechanisms of action,” Dr. Murrough said in an interview. “Once a patient hasn’t responded to currently available agents, it’s hard think of new medications to fill that need.”

This need for a novel target motivated Dr. Murrough and associates to research the KCNQ2/3 potassium channel, which has not been previously studied as a therapeutic target for depression.

The KCNQ2/3 channel controls brain cell excitability and function by controlling the flow of the electrical charge across the cell membrane in the form of potassium ions, Dr. Murrough explained.

Previous research using a chronic social defeat model of depression in mice showed changes in the KCNQ2/3 channel. “This was key to determining whether a mouse showed depressive behavior in the context of stress, or whether the mice were resistant or resilient to stress,” he said.

Mice resistant to stress showed increased markers in brain regions associated with reward, while the less resilient mice showed excessive excitability and dysfunction. Dysfunction in the brain’s reward system leads to anhedonia, a “core feature” of depressive disorders.

This inspired Dr. Murrough’s group to identify ezogabine, a drug that acts on this channel.

“Our research was less about the medication itself and more a proof of concept study to see if targeting the KCNQ channel might hold potential for addressing depressive symptoms,” Dr. Murrough said
 

Nonsignificant trend

The researchers studied 45 adults diagnosed with depression who exhibited significant anhedonia and at least moderate illness severity.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ezogabine (n = 21, mean age 44 years at enrollment, 28.3% male) or placebo (n = 24, mean age 39 years at enrollment, 50% male). At baseline and following treatment, participants completed the incentive flanker test under fMRI conditions to model brain activity during anticipation of a reward. In addition, clinical measures of depression and anhedonia were assessed at weekly visits.

The study groups did not differ significantly in performance accuracy during the fMRI task at baseline or following treatment. The table below summarizes the percentage of errors in each group, with standard deviation.

Heterogeneous condition

In contrast, there were notable improvements from baseline to the final outcome visit in clinical measures of depression and anhedonia in the ezogabine group, compared with the placebo group. Mean (SD) differences in depression scores, based on the MADRS (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) from baseline to endpoint as follows: mean difference, –7.9 (3.0); effect size, 0.76; response rate, 61.9% (ezogabine) and 37.5% (placebo); remission rate: 38.1% (ezogabine) and 20.8% (placebo)

Compared with placebo, there were also large improvements in hedonic capacity, as measured by the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale and the anticipatory subscale of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (t, –4.1; df, 212; P < .001 and t, 3.4; df, 213; P < .001, respectively).

Compared with placebo, ezogabine was associated with “significant benefit” in global illness severity and improvement (Clinical Global Impression–Severity: t, –2.2; df, 214; P = .026 and CGI-Improvement: t, –2.9; d, 214; P = .004, respectively).

Ezogabine was well tolerated. Dizziness and headache were the most common adverse events.

Depression is a “heterogeneous condition” with a single diagnosis encompassing a “large, multifaceted” array of symptoms, Dr. Murrough noted. A growing body of research is focusing on specific components as potential treatment targets. “Our study looked specifically at patients with a diagnosis of depression but high scores on the anhedonia scale and we found that boosting the function of the KCNQ2/3 channel may have a beneficial antidepressant effect by improving anhedonia.”
 

Potential gain

In a comment, Alan Schatzberg, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that “anytime there’s a new treatment with a new mechanism of action for a given condition, there’s a potential gain for the field.”

Dr. Schatzberg, who was not involved with the study, said that ezogabine, with its “potentially new mechanism of action, seems to have an effect and reasonable safety and could be important for patients who may not respond to traditional medications. It might also be important for all sorts of patients, depending on findings of later trials.”

Dr. Murrough said that ezogabine in still in “early stages” of research. “We hope that future studies will look at other agents that would also affect this channel,” he added.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Additional funding was provided by the Friedman Brain Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience, a component of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Dr. Murrough is an inventor of a pending patent application for the use of ezogabine and other KCNQ channel openers to treat depression and related disorders. Dr. Schatzberg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antiseizure medication appears to reduce anhedonia in patients with depression via a novel mechanism that may offer a new therapeutic target for the disorder, new research suggests.

Results of a small, randomized trial show those who received ezogabine (Potiga) experienced a significant reduction in key measures of depression and anhedonia versus placebo.

Participants in the treatment group also showed a trend toward increased response to reward anticipation on functional MRI (fMRI), compared with those treated with placebo, although the effect did not reach statistical significance.

“Our study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that a drug affecting this kind of ion channel in the brain can improve depression and anhedonia in patients,” senior investigator James Murrough, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a press release.

“Targeting this channel represents a completely different mechanism of action than any currently available antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Murrough, who is also director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at Mount Sinai.

The study was published online March 3 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Need for a novel target

“One of the main issues in treating depression is that many of our current antidepressants have similar mechanisms of action,” Dr. Murrough said in an interview. “Once a patient hasn’t responded to currently available agents, it’s hard think of new medications to fill that need.”

This need for a novel target motivated Dr. Murrough and associates to research the KCNQ2/3 potassium channel, which has not been previously studied as a therapeutic target for depression.

The KCNQ2/3 channel controls brain cell excitability and function by controlling the flow of the electrical charge across the cell membrane in the form of potassium ions, Dr. Murrough explained.

Previous research using a chronic social defeat model of depression in mice showed changes in the KCNQ2/3 channel. “This was key to determining whether a mouse showed depressive behavior in the context of stress, or whether the mice were resistant or resilient to stress,” he said.

Mice resistant to stress showed increased markers in brain regions associated with reward, while the less resilient mice showed excessive excitability and dysfunction. Dysfunction in the brain’s reward system leads to anhedonia, a “core feature” of depressive disorders.

This inspired Dr. Murrough’s group to identify ezogabine, a drug that acts on this channel.

“Our research was less about the medication itself and more a proof of concept study to see if targeting the KCNQ channel might hold potential for addressing depressive symptoms,” Dr. Murrough said
 

Nonsignificant trend

The researchers studied 45 adults diagnosed with depression who exhibited significant anhedonia and at least moderate illness severity.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ezogabine (n = 21, mean age 44 years at enrollment, 28.3% male) or placebo (n = 24, mean age 39 years at enrollment, 50% male). At baseline and following treatment, participants completed the incentive flanker test under fMRI conditions to model brain activity during anticipation of a reward. In addition, clinical measures of depression and anhedonia were assessed at weekly visits.

The study groups did not differ significantly in performance accuracy during the fMRI task at baseline or following treatment. The table below summarizes the percentage of errors in each group, with standard deviation.

Heterogeneous condition

In contrast, there were notable improvements from baseline to the final outcome visit in clinical measures of depression and anhedonia in the ezogabine group, compared with the placebo group. Mean (SD) differences in depression scores, based on the MADRS (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) from baseline to endpoint as follows: mean difference, –7.9 (3.0); effect size, 0.76; response rate, 61.9% (ezogabine) and 37.5% (placebo); remission rate: 38.1% (ezogabine) and 20.8% (placebo)

Compared with placebo, there were also large improvements in hedonic capacity, as measured by the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale and the anticipatory subscale of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (t, –4.1; df, 212; P < .001 and t, 3.4; df, 213; P < .001, respectively).

Compared with placebo, ezogabine was associated with “significant benefit” in global illness severity and improvement (Clinical Global Impression–Severity: t, –2.2; df, 214; P = .026 and CGI-Improvement: t, –2.9; d, 214; P = .004, respectively).

Ezogabine was well tolerated. Dizziness and headache were the most common adverse events.

Depression is a “heterogeneous condition” with a single diagnosis encompassing a “large, multifaceted” array of symptoms, Dr. Murrough noted. A growing body of research is focusing on specific components as potential treatment targets. “Our study looked specifically at patients with a diagnosis of depression but high scores on the anhedonia scale and we found that boosting the function of the KCNQ2/3 channel may have a beneficial antidepressant effect by improving anhedonia.”
 

Potential gain

In a comment, Alan Schatzberg, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that “anytime there’s a new treatment with a new mechanism of action for a given condition, there’s a potential gain for the field.”

Dr. Schatzberg, who was not involved with the study, said that ezogabine, with its “potentially new mechanism of action, seems to have an effect and reasonable safety and could be important for patients who may not respond to traditional medications. It might also be important for all sorts of patients, depending on findings of later trials.”

Dr. Murrough said that ezogabine in still in “early stages” of research. “We hope that future studies will look at other agents that would also affect this channel,” he added.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Additional funding was provided by the Friedman Brain Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience, a component of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Dr. Murrough is an inventor of a pending patent application for the use of ezogabine and other KCNQ channel openers to treat depression and related disorders. Dr. Schatzberg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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